That's because a poll doesn't name a 'champion' despite what people like to call it. It's an opinion of who is best. Results, outcomes, etc don't matter if you're of the opinion that someone else is still 'better'.

Sykotyk;736019 wrote:That's because a poll doesn't name a 'champion' despite what people like to call it. It's an opinion of who is best. Results, outcomes, etc don't matter if you're of the opinion that someone else is still 'better'.

Because that someone else never got a chance to prove it on the field. If people think TCU is the best, and the lose to Auburn in the title game, would people really still think TCU is the best?

I heard the guys from the BCS go to forums like this to get everyone's opinion on how the system is working.. They want to hear every idea before they make a decision. Or maybe nobody really cares what u guys are arguing about and everyone should go on living their lives..

clickclickboom;736308 wrote:I heard the guys from the BCS go to forums like this to get everyone's opinion on how the system is working.. They want to hear every idea before they make a decision. Or maybe nobody really cares what u guys are arguing about and everyone should go on living their lives..

Gee, if that's the case, there ain't much to talk about!

clickclickboom;736308 wrote:I heard the guys from the BCS go to forums like this to get everyone's opinion on how the system is working.. They want to hear every idea before they make a decision. Or maybe nobody really cares what u guys are arguing about and everyone should go on living their lives..

isn't that the purpose of a message board, to discuss (aka argue) opinions? maybe I'm missing something here

clickclickboom;736308 wrote:I heard the guys from the BCS go to forums like this to get everyone's opinion on how the system is working.. They want to hear every idea before they make a decision. Or maybe nobody really cares what u guys are arguing about and everyone should go on living their lives..

Lol. What's the point of talking about anything then? It's not like Jim Tressel is coming here to read everyone's opinions about him. What's the point in talking about that?

enigmaax;735189 wrote:So, here's an example...a ninth-place team in their own conference with 9 losses reels off 11 wins in a row and is called the champion (really only six of those games mattered) in a glorious playoff. A team who finished with 3 losses overall had won 24 in a row at one point. Another team that only lost 3 games overall had an earlier winning streak of 18 and then another of 11 games right up to being eliminated from the tourney. A team with 5 losses overall won 15 in a row at one point.

The "best" team hasn't beaten all the teams it played in over 30 years. Teams lose games, even when they are better. I'm sure you are willing to accept that, otherwise I'd like to hear how the "best" team manage to lose 9 games?

Here's an example

DON'T LOSE TO AN "INFERIOR" OPPONENT when it counts. And I'm an OSU fan. You get the regular season to prove you belong in the tournament...to get a CHANCE to win a national championship, and to prove a point as to where you should be seeded. I love basketball because just as you said, you have to go out and BACK IT UP. OSU looked like a great, dominant team for most of the year. But guess what, they found a team that could beat them. And that's the nature of sports. If you're the best, go prove it, or go home. The nature of sports is NOT to manipulate the system to keep the big schools in the drivers seat and continue to ignore undefeated team from a midmajor. Did you know that since the BCS has started that SEVEN (7) midmajors have finished the season undefeated, and ZERO (0) have obviously even gotten a CHANCE to play for a national championship? Utah has done it twice, Boise State did it twice, and TCU has done it the last two years, and Hawaii did it in 2007. And oh by the way, those 7 teams are 5-2 in their bowl games, with wins over Oklahoma, Alabama, Pitt, Wisconsin and TCU. The only REAL loss was Hawaii getting killed by Alabama, and it was deserved. However, TCU's loss that was a total copout on the BCS's part to put Boise State and TCU against each other so A) one of them would have to lose and they wouldn't have TWO 14-0 teams crying foul that they didn't get a chance to win the NC, and B) so none of their other precious cash cow schools got trounced in their bowl game by a school that is supposedly so inferior and weak, from the wussy-like WAC...except none of the BCS schools can find a way to beat them the last several years.

And regarding your example of the basketball tournament this year...Butler was the favorite in exactly 1 of their 5 tournament wins, correct? and that was the 8/9 matchup against ODU that are basically tossups because they're the closest teams by seed in the first round? That means that Butler upset 4 teams to get to the title game. For the second year in a row. But you guys are right, that would NEVER happen in football. So we should just stick to the system where a bunch of biased voters who are more concerned with who's bringing in the most money, instead of who the best teams are, decide who gets a chance to play in the NC game. My particular favorite has always been Ohio State and LSU from a few years ago. Neither team belonged anywhere close to the NC game, but of course, it raked in a shitload of money so that's who got to play.

I love how you guys are citing the tournament, that makes every effort it should be be fair and give at least 1 bid to every conference in the country, as the model for "evil" and citing how the BCS is better, even though the BCS embodies almost nothing of what college athletics are built on and the tournament does. The BCS is a model of popularity, exclusivity, money and who will bring the best ratings. The NCAA tournament, regardless of TV ratings is there to determine which team/teams from each conference deserves a shot to play for a NC by winning their conference, and pitting teams against each other that wouldn't normally play (VCU/Kansas for instance) to determine WHO CAN BEAT WHO IN AN ACTUAL FUCKING GAME instead of sitting there wasting everybody's time by arguing back and forth about something that's never going to happen with the current system. LET THE PLAY IT ON THE FIELD AND WE WON'T HAVE TO GUESS WHO THE BETTER TEAM IS BECAUSE SOMEONE WILL GO OUT AND PROVE IT! Jesus christ it's not that hard to figure out.

Red_Skin_Pride;736971 wrote:Here's an example

DON'T LOSE TO AN "INFERIOR" OPPONENT when it counts. And I'm an OSU fan. You get the regular season to prove you belong in the tournament...to get a CHANCE to win a national championship, and to prove a point as to where you should be seeded. I love basketball because just as you said, you have to go out and BACK IT UP. OSU looked like a great, dominant team for most of the year. But guess what, they found a team that could beat them. And that's the nature of sports. If you're the best, go prove it, or go home. The nature of sports is NOT to manipulate the system to keep the big schools in the drivers seat and continue to ignore undefeated team from a midmajor. Did you know that since the BCS has started that SEVEN (7) midmajors have finished the season undefeated, and ZERO (0) have obviously even gotten a CHANCE to play for a national championship? Utah has done it twice, Boise State did it twice, and TCU has done it the last two years, and Hawaii did it in 2007. And oh by the way, those 7 teams are 5-2 in their bowl games, with wins over Oklahoma, Alabama, Pitt, Wisconsin and TCU. The only REAL loss was Hawaii getting killed by Alabama, and it was deserved. However, TCU's loss that was a total copout on the BCS's part to put Boise State and TCU against each other so A) one of them would have to lose and they wouldn't have TWO 14-0 teams crying foul that they didn't get a chance to win the NC, and B) so none of their other precious cash cow schools got trounced in their bowl game by a school that is supposedly so inferior and weak, from the wussy-like WAC...except none of the BCS schools can find a way to beat them the last several years.

And regarding your example of the basketball tournament this year...Butler was the favorite in exactly 1 of their 5 tournament wins, correct? and that was the 8/9 matchup against ODU that are basically tossups because they're the closest teams by seed in the first round? That means that Butler upset 4 teams to get to the title game. For the second year in a row. But you guys are right, that would NEVER happen in football. So we should just stick to the system where a bunch of biased voters who are more concerned with who's bringing in the most money, instead of who the best teams are, decide who gets a chance to play in the NC game. My particular favorite has always been Ohio State and LSU from a few years ago. Neither team belonged anywhere close to the NC game, but of course, it raked in a shitload of money so that's who got to play.

I love how you guys are citing the tournament, that makes every effort it should be be fair and give at least 1 bid to every conference in the country, as the model for "evil" and citing how the BCS is better, even though the BCS embodies almost nothing of what college athletics are built on and the tournament does. The BCS is a model of popularity, exclusivity, money and who will bring the best ratings. The NCAA tournament, regardless of TV ratings is there to determine which team/teams from each conference deserves a shot to play for a NC by winning their conference, and pitting teams against each other that wouldn't normally play (VCU/Kansas for instance) to determine WHO CAN BEAT WHO IN AN ACTUAL FUCKING GAME instead of sitting there wasting everybody's time by arguing back and forth about something that's never going to happen with the current system. LET THE PLAY IT ON THE FIELD AND WE WON'T HAVE TO GUESS WHO THE BETTER TEAM IS BECAUSE SOMEONE WILL GO OUT AND PROVE IT! Jesus christ it's not that hard to figure out.

Boise and TCU did not play as part of some grand conspiracy to keep them away from the big schools. Sorry, no individual bowl game is going to say, "okay, I'll take this one for the team". It just worked out that they got stuck together because of the selection process that has remained the same for several years now.

The basketball tournament is brought up by playoff advocates as some kind of proof that a playoff is needed in college football in order to best determine a champion and/or who is "best". It doesn't prove that, that's all. Both sports crown champions. Neither method guarantees that the "best" team will be the champion.

There isn't much room to slip up in college football over the entire season. As proven just this year in the basketball tournament, you can be largely mediocre all season as long as you win a few games at the end. The tournament is an exciting couple of weeks, but the season to get there doesn't mean a whole lot if you are simply an above average team. You can love it, I just don't.

I would enjoy a football playoff. My stance is simply that no one has come up with a compelling reason as to why college football NEEDS a playoff. The game is doing fine without a playoff. There's a champion to satisfy the masses, it is just a highly selective process. In that system, it is about the resume so TCU is going to be left out of the title game most of the time. It isn't the end of the world - the whole reason they are even in that position is because the term/classification "FBS" allows them the opportunity to compete at a lower level yet reap the same benefits as the "big boys".

How important do you think the BCS money is to TCU and the rest of its conference? How important do you think that money is to the secondary sports at TCU and its other conference members? Go ahead and implement a playoff that doesn't generate the same money for a vast majority of schools and see how great it works out for the sport and for the little guys. There's just way more to it than being fair to TCU/Boise/Utah by giving them a chance to win a game in a tournament. To me, that isn't too difficult to figure out.

You are clearly aware of the dynamic and the unique responsbility that college football has to its schools. Yes, it IS about money. But it isn't just money for the sake of making money - that money reaches far beyond the little college football season.

When football team can play two games a week for a full month, come me talk to me about a meaningful football playoff. I don't like it, but facts are facts.

With conference tournaments, all but a handful of schools have the (theoretical ) opportunity to win the NCAA basketball tournament. Yet, every year, there is much moaning and screaming over the where the NCAA draws the line for a 68-team tournament. With an eight-team football playoff (probably the practical maximum number ) you're looking at one or two at-large teams - the debate over who gets in vs. who doesn't will produce armed conflict in parts of the South and Midwest. If you were willing to end the bowl system, sixteen teams might be practical, but you're still going to see several two-loss teams with no playoff game at all.

enigmaax;736996 wrote: Boise and TCU did not play as part of some grand conspiracy to keep them away from the big schools. Sorry, no individual bowl game is going to say, "okay, I'll take this one for the team". It just worked out that they got stuck together because of the selection process that has remained the same for several years now.

Your statement right here is proving my exact point. No bowl game wanted to "take one for the team" and have them both in seperate bowl games because the ratings would have suffered, so what they did was pushed those two teams into the fiesta bowl, which traditionally gets shit on anyways in terms of matchups (OU/Uconn, Boise/TCU, Utah/Pitt) so that the ratings of all the other games wouldn't be affected. That to me directly contradicts your statement down below that it isn't about money for the sake of money. I don't want to get into politics on here, but if there's a system that a lot of people are wanting to see changed or re-tooled because it could work better, shouldn't it be? I'm not claiming college basketball's tournament is the perfect system, but it is sure a hell of lot more open and fair than the BCS is. College football likes to claim that 119 schools start out the season with a chance to win it all...yeah, like hell they do. Even in theory they don't. At least in a tournament format, all the schools in college basketball at their respective levels DO have a chance to win it all, without subjectivity deciding who that is.

enigmaax;736996 wrote:The basketball tournament is brought up by playoff advocates as some kind of proof that a playoff is needed in college football in order to best determine a champion and/or who is "best". It doesn't prove that, that's all. Both sports crown champions. Neither method guarantees that the "best" team will be the champion.

Because best is only a perception. I don't want the basketball tournament or the BCS to crown the best in perception, I want them to crown the team that's the best on the field or court. If college basketball were set up like the BCS, you would have had Ohio State and Kansas end the regular season and play in the NC game. We saw how far that actually was from reality, as neither even made it to the semi-finals, let alone the championship game. I don't know what else you want to "prove" that there is more and more parity in college sports every year, that the BCS continues to ignore. There have been a ton of midmajors making elite 8 and final 4 runs over the last decade in basketball, and as I said in my last post, since 03-04, 7 midmajors have finished the regular season undefeated and made BCS bowls. That's showing proof in both sports, yet college football is the only one that continues to ignore them and leave them out. College football is in NO WAY like it was in the mid-1990's when the BCS system was being organized and implimented. Basketball has accomodated that change several times over it's history with the expansion of the field and giving auto bids to the tournament for every conference regardless of size. The BCS added the NCG on to the other 4 BCS games, but it didn't do anything to make it open to everybody. All that did was allow more spots in Fiesta or Orange bowl...while prestigious and a good payday for midmajors, care to guess how many 4* and 5* recruits don't even consider a midmajor football school because they know they'll never have the chance to win a national championship there? I love TCU, but if I was a top level recruit coming out of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area I wouldn't bother looking at TCU because I know if I want to win a NC, it'll never happen there. If they had a legitimate shot to win a NC like Texas/A&M/TT/Baylor, you'd be surprised how many looks they'd get by top recruits. But the big schools can't have that, because then they won't be getting all the top recruits. The BCS scratches their backs by conveniently leaving out a team like TCU/Boise so they don't ever get enough recruits to turn themselves into a true powerhouse, and the powerhouse teams scratch the BCS's back by bringing in tons of $ for their bowl games ever year, because they get the best kids and start out ranked highly because they're Texas, or because they're Florida etc.

enigmaax;736996 wrote:There isn't much room to slip up in college football over the entire season. As proven just this year in the basketball tournament, you can be largely mediocre all season as long as you win a few games at the end. The tournament is an exciting couple of weeks, but the season to get there doesn't mean a whole lot if you are simply an above average team. You can love it, I just don't.

As Mike Wilbon just stated a few days ago on PTI, the entire season of college football didn't mean anything to TCU last year if you're talking about it in terms of winning the biggest prize, in theory, what everyone is supposed to be playing the sport to win. Sure, they got a lot of $, but how do you think even making it into the NC game, let alone possibly winning it would have affected every aspect of a university with roughly 4,000 kids? And the other completely hypocritical aspect of the BCS is that if you're in a PERCEIVED "tough" conference, YOU can be largely mediocre all year and still make the BCS, or even the NC game, while a midmajor HAS to be perfect in order to even make the BCS. Even if they're perfect, nobody's ever proven that they'll be rewarded with a chance to win the NC. As a matter of fact, it's been amply DISPROVEN. No matter what you do, you have no chance. So tell me how the regular season means anything to 50% of college football teams if we're talking about winning a national title?

enigmaax;736996 wrote:I would enjoy a football playoff. My stance is simply that no one has come up with a compelling reason as to why college football NEEDS a playoff. The game is doing fine without a playoff. There's a champion to satisfy the masses, it is just a highly selective process. In that system, it is about the resume so TCU is going to be left out of the title game most of the time. It isn't the end of the world - the whole reason they are even in that position is because the term/classification "FBS" allows them the opportunity to compete at a lower level yet reap the same benefits as the "big boys".

Sure, the game is doing fine without a playoff according to the people in power, who convieniently are the people who run the big universities and who benefit from those universities making them hundreds of millions of dollars. "Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy" is a convenient argument coming from the guy selling the sticks. And I love the resume argument. Was it about the resume when LSU lost 2 games to two of the best teams they played, won 10 games against patsies and decent SEC teams and still got in? Or OSU beating NO ONE that year, losing to a 9-3 Illinois team that had ZERO interest in being in the Rose Bowl, and getting in? That "strong" resume that Nebraska posted, getting trounced in the Big12 championship game by Colorado 63-36 and still getting in, despite other teams having an equivalent record and WINNING their conference championship games and still being left out? Or for that matter, OU getting rolled by K State in the same conference championship and "earning their way" to a 40 point beatdown by USC? Or Auburn's 13-0 regular season somehow not being good enough, while the whole country slept through the national championship game that year? If you look back on the years since the BCS's inception, you can see that they get it wrong about as often as they get it right. It's been fairly easy the last few years (aside from Boise and TCU), and in years it's EASY the BCS works well. But it's the years where stuff isn't so clear, and there's teams with similar records, you CAN'T, you just CANNOT have a subjective system. It's playing favorites plain and simple. It's who's going to benefit US the most.

And the flipside of that is the only reason the "big boys" get to be the "big boys" is because they take advantage of a system that keeps the midmajors at their current level and allows them no REAL way to move up. I guess "beat them or join them" doesn't apply anymore...in college football it's "beat them until you're sick of being ignored and then be forced to joing them as the only way you'll ever get noticed for it".

enigmaax;736996 wrote:How important do you think the BCS money is to TCU and the rest of its conference? How important do you think that money is to the secondary sports at TCU and its other conference members? Go ahead and implement a playoff that doesn't generate the same money for a vast majority of schools and see how great it works out for the sport and for the little guys. There's just way more to it than being fair to TCU/Boise/Utah by giving them a chance to win a game in a tournament. To me, that isn't too difficult to figure out.

Yes the money is important, but you're only looking at one side of the coin. How important do you think it would be for a university like TCU/Boise/Utah to win a national championship? Not only would benefits include money, but in terms of recruiting, in terms of television rights/national exposure, in terms of merchandise, in terms of RESPECT. Look at what happened to a school like Florida State, or a school like Washington after they won a national championship.

enigmaax;736996 wrote:You are clearly aware of the dynamic and the unique responsbility that college football has to its schools. Yes, it IS about money. But it isn't just money for the sake of making money - that money reaches far beyond the little college football season.

Right, so how long do we keep the glass ceiling over a school before we allow them the same opportunity we allow other Division I schools? Ever think about how having a national-championship calibur sport at a school benefits all the other programs in terms of money for the school? I'd be willing to bet my left arm that Butler is going to be seeing some pretty awesome results for their entire athletic department after the last two years their basketball team has had. I'm pretty sure OSU football finances the vast majority of the athletic department. They do that because they are a national power. Boise State can't do that because no matter what they do, they'll never reap the benefits of earning that same title. The BCS sends the message, "yeah, you can make a bunch of money by getting into a BCS game, but you can't reach the level of X school". That's why the AD's of smaller schools are so vocal; because as you just said, it's not just about their football program; they want the same benefit other Division I schools have the opportunity to earn for their entire athletic department's benefit. I mean after all, you just said yourself, they're all classified as the same "level" of football (FBS)...so why are there two sets of standards, that clearly benefits one side and either intentionally or unintentionally restricts the other?

What Red_Skin_Pride said x1000000

Red_Skin_Pride;737863 wrote:Your statement right here is proving my exact point. No bowl game wanted to "take one for the team" and have them both in seperate bowl games because the ratings would have suffered, so what they did was pushed those two teams into the fiesta bowl, which traditionally gets shit on anyways in terms of matchups (OU/Uconn, Boise/TCU, Utah/Pitt) so that the ratings of all the other games wouldn't be affected. That to me directly contradicts your statement down below that it isn't about money for the sake of money. I don't want to get into politics on here, but if there's a system that a lot of people are wanting to see changed or re-tooled because it could work better, shouldn't it be? I'm not claiming college basketball's tournament is the perfect system, but it is sure a hell of lot more open and fair than the BCS is. College football likes to claim that 119 schools start out the season with a chance to win it all...yeah, like hell they do. Even in theory they don't. At least in a tournament format, all the schools in college basketball at their respective levels DO have a chance to win it all, without subjectivity deciding who that is.

The Fiesta Bowl gets equal treatment when it comes to picking their teams. The fact that they have ended up with most of the crappy match-ups is more coincidence than anything else.

There are a few money angles and when I say it isn't "just for the sake of money", what I mean is that where that money goes ends up being the most important thing. From the Bowl Committee's standpoint, I'm sure a lot of people would argue greed drives the selections. The Fiesta Bowl debacle is going to enhance this perception. I'm not a huge fan of how that money was spent either and every bowl probably has its share of lavish, unnecessary spending. But, they are also footing the bill to begin with and taking all of the upfront risk. If the bowl loses money, it doesn't impact the NCAA or the schools. As for the schools, the amount of money, the way it is distributed, and how it is used to support non-revenue generating sports are all considerations when you talk about this system.

I absolutely do NOT believe that a change should be made just because a bunch of people with no financial risk, no business sense, and no solid business plan want to see it work a little bit differently. And that difference in how we view the topic is why we'll never convince each other to change opinions. You go on to mention what playing for a national title would do to boost TCU (as an example). Well, it isn't about TCU. It is about the good of all schools and like it or not, overhauling this system HAS to be about more than giving TCU a shot at the title. And depending on how far you go with expanding into a playoff system, you run a distinct risk of damaging the earning power of far more schools and for what? So one or two teams can maybe win a trophy and/or improve their standing? Not worth it.

Although you'll use this point as some evidence of the corruption and the anti-mission of the whole NCAA, I'll remind you of the fact that the BCS conferences and their schools created this system and it has benefitted everyone (even the small schools). So again, you can talk about the wonders a playoff might do for TCU but unless you have a plan that is not going to negatively impact Baylor/Indiana/Vanderbilt/etc, there's really no point in trying. If your boss asked you to take a pay cut to help fund an employee of the year award, you know, because it'd be good to give everyone a chance at a single recognition would you do it?

The thing about a playoff is that the handful of elite programs wouldn't suffer, a handful of ready-to-break-out middle-tier schools would make a little more every once in awhile (and might even win a championship), but there's a high likelihood that the remaining 75-80% of schools would at a minimum be taking a risk on making significantly less money and more likely a large number of schools would see their overall athletic health suffer. It is funny because you're demanding equality for an arbitrary title but willing to give up the relative equality (with a FAR greater impact and a much larger pool of impactees) provided by the current system.

Red_Skin_Pride;737863 wrote:Because best is only a perception. I don't want the basketball tournament or the BCS to crown the best in perception, I want them to crown the team that's the best on the field or court. If college basketball were set up like the BCS, you would have had Ohio State and Kansas end the regular season and play in the NC game. We saw how far that actually was from reality, as neither even made it to the semi-finals, let alone the championship game. I don't know what else you want to "prove" that there is more and more parity in college sports every year, that the BCS continues to ignore. There have been a ton of midmajors making elite 8 and final 4 runs over the last decade in basketball, and as I said in my last post, since 03-04, 7 midmajors have finished the regular season undefeated and made BCS bowls. That's showing proof in both sports, yet college football is the only one that continues to ignore them and leave them out. College football is in NO WAY like it was in the mid-1990's when the BCS system was being organized and implimented. Basketball has accomodated that change several times over it's history with the expansion of the field and giving auto bids to the tournament for every conference regardless of size. The BCS added the NCG on to the other 4 BCS games, but it didn't do anything to make it open to everybody. All that did was allow more spots in Fiesta or Orange bowl...while prestigious and a good payday for midmajors, care to guess how many 4* and 5* recruits don't even consider a midmajor football school because they know they'll never have the chance to win a national championship there? I love TCU, but if I was a top level recruit coming out of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area I wouldn't bother looking at TCU because I know if I want to win a NC, it'll never happen there. If they had a legitimate shot to win a NC like Texas/A&M/TT/Baylor, you'd be surprised how many looks they'd get by top recruits.

You keep talking about these undefeated seasons by midmajors...and keep forgetting that they achieve those by playing inferior competition. It just doesn't mean anything. Yes, I know that we're leaving the selection in the hands of humans. I'm okay with that. It is a highly selective process and not everyone is going to make it. Kind of like life. Are you going to become a CEO by touting your management experience at McDonald's? Some resumes are better than others.

But now look what is happening. The schools who are serious about trying to better their programs stature are joining major conferences or going independent. It has never been a secret that it has to be done that way and that is why I have never bought the "they did EVERYTHING they could".

And you keep going back to the basketball comparison. That system works for that sport. That sport had to find something to generate money and the tournament did that. The expansion was never about giving more schools "a shot", it was about the fact that they could include more teams and make more money in doing so. So, when you get down to it the same question remains - how would a playoff make more money for everyone? Develop a business plan that is going to far-and-away outdo what they have now and you might be onto something. In absence of that, you are still arguing the wrong point by appealing on some emotional level for TCU get more recruits or to play in a title game.

Red_Skin_Pride;737863 wrote:Was it about the resume when LSU lost 2 games to two of the best teams they played, won 10 games against patsies and decent SEC teams and still got in? Or OSU beating NO ONE that year, losing to a 9-3 Illinois team that had ZERO interest in being in the Rose Bowl, and getting in? That "strong" resume that Nebraska posted, getting trounced in the Big12 championship game by Colorado 63-36 and still getting in, despite other teams having an equivalent record and WINNING their conference championship games and still being left out? Or for that matter, OU getting rolled by K State in the same conference championship and "earning their way" to a 40 point beatdown by USC? Or Auburn's 13-0 regular season somehow not being good enough, while the whole country slept through the national championship game that year? If you look back on the years since the BCS's inception, you can see that they get it wrong about as often as they get it right. It's been fairly easy the last few years (aside from Boise and TCU), and in years it's EASY the BCS works well. But it's the years where stuff isn't so clear, and there's teams with similar records, you CAN'T, you just CANNOT have a subjective system. It's playing favorites plain and simple. It's who's going to benefit US the most.

Quite simply, yes it was about the resume in those situations you mentioned (btw, OU didn't lose to K State and then get blown out by USC - OU lost 21-14 to LSU when both had 1 loss in 2003 and both OU and USC were undefeated in 2004 when USC blew them out). The teams you're talking about who made it had still beaten a better overall schedule than the other schools vying for a spot. I just don't agree that they've gotten it wrong (other than maybe USC in 2003, but that is based on who they put on the field not necessarily how they did on the field). There's two spots and I don't feel anyone who deserved to be one of those two has ever been left out of that format. Would it have been nice to see a couple extra teams? Sure. But that doesn't mean the two teams were "wrong".

What enigmaax said x1000000