Well then I ask the following: At what point would you decide the BCS needed to be overhauled, if not done away with altogether? Suppose my previous scenario (a 4 loss team playing a 3 loss team for the NC game with an undefeated team being left out) came to pass. Nevermind the likelyhood of it. Just a hypothetical. If that happened, would you then deem that the BCS was trash? At some point, we have to draw a line of what is acceptable, and what isn't. If a system that allows undefeated teams to have no possible shot at an NC is acceptable to people on this forum, then I'd better not see anyone complaining when it happens to us like it did to Auburn and Tulane.
Good thing it doesn't matter what Oregon or "us" think. Bill Clinton won the White House with less than 50% of the popular vote...he was still the President. Lots of folks weren't happy. Them's the breaks, as "they" say.
Well actually in the current system, a 4 loss team will not make it to the NCG. You may as well say a 12 loss team while you are at it. Only in a playoff system can a 4 loss team reach the NCG so my answer is no. Since there is freedom of thought, people will have different opinions but the majority will rule. When mistakes happen, corrections are made. Auburn's mistake was having a weaker schedule than the two teams that made it to the NCG. They will learn or suffer for committing the same mistake again. Tulane's mistake was just being Tulane. You may as well extrapolate your indictment of people and their opinions of various programs to include recruits as well. How can those recruits possibly regard one school better than the next? Or for that matter, how can one school offer a scholarship to one guy and not the next? If LSU loads up on cupcakes in order to go undefeated then we will be lucky to go to the NCG. Look at OSU for an example or watch Mizz fall over the next 2 weeks. The current system is not perfect and will probably get better until we determine a better way to do it. Sorry but I still remember the days when the #1 & #2 teams would rarely if ever play each other. If you argument is for an undefeated Hawaii to play, then they just have to play better teams. Nobody will go there? Then I guess they have to overcome that by traveling with no hope of a return game. They will figure it our or never play for the title.
WARNING! Pointless discussion ahead. Proceed with caution! C'mon Atreus - any discussion started with the phrase above is just pure whining. At some notional point, EVERY SYSTEM EVER DEVISED will break down under the pressure of ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE IMPOSSIBLE scenarios placed upon it by those who despise it. I have an idea! Let's beat the sh!t out of Ole Miss, then hold the McFadJonesHawgs to 50 yards rushing and kick the sh!t out of them, then crush Tenn or Jawja, then gouge Oregon/Kansas' eyes out and urinate in their sockets. After that, let's restart this thread and see what you think. :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231:
LSU and Oregon both lost games. At that point, both teams lose the right to whine and complain all that much. A few years back, Auburn won all of their games but were locked out because of their schedule. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I'm kind of in favor of a playoff, if only so I can watch more football. In any given year, there will be pros and cons for it though. I can't get all that worked up about it, really. To me, the goal is always a conference championship. The rest is gravy. That makes for a more enjoyable experience as well, since expectations aren't unrealistic like they are for most fans.
Any year in which the two best teams didn't actually play...............like in 2003. USC had ONE loss in triple OT on the road, sound familiar? We'll never know who the best team was because that game should have been LSU and USC just like in 2004 the game should have been USC and Auburn.
Auburn had a weaker schedule than USC? Dude, you can't mean that. Has there every been a disputed Super Bowl champion? Or a Division I-AA champion? In playoff scenarios, when a team doesn't make it in, they have only themselves to blame, because they knew what they had to do to get in. In the current system, it doesn't matter how well you play, because going undefeated isn't necessarily good enough.
Look man, I'm all about hoping the Tigers win out. I'm not trying to divert from that. But don't you see the contradictions I'm pointing out here? Everytime I give an example of a screw-job by the BCS, everyone says that will never happen. Yeah, but what if it DOES? Has everyone's capacity to address a hypothetical situation gone to hell? A one-loss team going to the NC over an undefeated team, which is not a hypothetical sistuation, is travesty enough, in my book, to seriously re-evaluate the integrity of the current system. It doesn't take too big of a leap to assume that the same thing could happen again, in an even more severe circumstance. If a one loss team can go over an undefeated team, why not a two-loss? After all, the two loss team played nothing but powerhouses, while the undefeated team played cupcakes (or at least, we're assuming they're cupcakes.)
i totally agree. take the top 8 teams put them in a bracket. high seed gets home field advantage, title game is played in rotation according to the year at 1 of the BCS bowls. there are 6 1 loss teams claiming they deserve to be in the title game
