92% of Americans and 78% of Georgians Are Wrong About the BCS
In an incredibly scientific poll conducted two days after the Super Bowl for the first time in modern memory even arguably paired the NFL’s two best teams, 92 per cent of Americans participating in the internet balloting indicated that the National Football League does a better job of producing a deserving champion than the Bowl Championship Series.
Georgians gave the BCS its second-highest approval rating (behind only the denizens of the state to our immediate left, currently the home of the BCS championship trophy) with 22 per cent.
For the record, while I did not vote in the poll, I am in that 22 per cent, a figure which doubtless would have been considerably higher the day after the New York Giants upset the New England Patriots.
It bears pointing out, by the way, that Plessy v. Ferguson was an 8-1 decision and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed 416-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate. As P.J. O’Rourke has pointed out, it’s not the divisive issues on which folks are split down the middle that pose the biggest threats; it’s the issues about which there is eerie unanimity that run the greatest risk of disastrously bad consequences, such as Jim Crow, the Vietnam War, and a Division I-A college football playoff.
Go ‘Dawgs!
almost 2 years ago
T Kyle King
15 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Don't panic!
It’s interesting that you point to the votes of politicians/bureaucrats to make a point about a national opinion poll. I doubt that the feelings of the nation at large were calibrated to such an unanimous pitch.
I don’t hate the BCS like many, but I would like an 8 or 16 team playoff. I don’t believe, and you’re oft-stated hatred of the plainsmen makes me think you will agree, that losing to Auburn would be any less painful if we still had a shot at the national title afterward (as long as we can get past the Jackets ogodcrossfingersnonono). It would still suck, we’d be seeded lower (and remember we’d still have to have a truly great season to make the playoffs anyway) and our punishment would still be meted out in regular verbal abuse from Alabamans.
I think you’ve said in the past you relish the uncertainty of the postseason as it existed when you were younger. That’s fine; no will force you to admit the Saints or Team X is the greatest in the land after they win a playoff. It still won’t be a fact, only a title conferred. It surely will not destroy the college football universe we know and love.
Remember that being top eight is incredibly hard, ditto top 16, and therefore you still have to have a great season to make the playoffs. Losing will still be awful, winning will still be awesome.
Hear Hear.
The timing of the poll is suspect at best and manipulative at worst.
I remain in favor of a “plus-one” model that seeds teams 1-4 after the championship games have been played, and has #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3 on New Year’s Day. Then, the winners playing one week later for the championship. Such a setup preserves the current system and allows for a season with multiple unbeaten teams from major conferences, as was the case this year.
The biggest downside to this system is that the Rose Bowl would rarely get its beloved Pac-10/Big 10+1 matchup, ticking off the Tournament of Roses officials. The biggest upside is that the Rose Bowl would rarely get its beloved Pac-10/Big 10+1 matchup, which means that there is a far greater chance that Georgia could play in the Rose Bowl again.
Isn't that just a 4-team playoff?
I don’t mean to split hairs, but in my mind, a “plus-one” would be the 4 BCS bowls being played and then 2 teams (of the 8) being chosen to play in the National Championship game. What you’re calling a plus-one is essentially a 4 team playoff. The moniker “plus-one” sounds more like a euphemism for playoff rather than what plus-one sounds like (in my mind, at least) which is: play the bowls and then choose two teams to play one more game.
by marktheshark on Feb 9, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
That's why I defined it.
A “plus one” system can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Yes, that’s essentially a 4-team playoff, but a playoff in college football is evil, so I call it a “plus one.” :-) If you think about it, you could just call the current BCS iteration a 2-team playoff. It’s all in the definition of terms.
You could still call the system the Bowl Championship Series, still continue to use the BCS standings, and still continue to use all of the current BCS bowls. In the same way they rotate the National Championship game now, however, they could also rotate the two semifinal games. For example:
2011: 1 vs. 4 in the Rose Bowl, 2 vs. 3 in the Orange Bowl, National Championship game in Glendale a week later. (The Sugar and Fiesta bowls would be unaffected.)
2012: 1-4 in Fiesta Bowl, 2-3 in the Rose Bowl, National Championship in New Orleans a week later. (The Sugar and Orange Bowls would be unaffected.)
2013: 1-4 in the Sugar Bowl, 2-3 in the Fiesta Bowl, National Championship in Miami a week later. (The Rose and Orange Bowls would be unaffected.)
And so on.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 9, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
The current BCS iteration absolutely is a 2-team playoff.
I agree with you there. I always point this out to playoff proponents. I say, " we do have playoff, and I don’t want it expanding from two teams to four, and so on." That is why I fear the plus one. It would mark the official beginning of the bracket creep that has watered down March Madness. I personally prefer no playoff whatsoever, even the BCS-type two team playoff. I wish it would go back to the old ways, when more than one team had a chance to win the National Title (in a non-playoff manner, of course), so that more games meant something than just one, yet you still don’t end up with teams like UGA circa 1993 (as discussed below) having a chance to win it all. I really don’t care if there’s a split title.
by marktheshark on Feb 11, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm...
So the playoff matched the best two teams from the regular season in the championship game? Seems the playoff was not necessary.
The playoffs have nothing to do with just the 2 best teams
This bowl season, as all have been in the BCS Era, was a group of horrible match-ups.
Boise State and Texas Christian is a Major Bowl Game ?
Georgia tek and Iowa is a Major Bowl Game ?
Cincinnati and Florida is a Major Bowl Game ?
Okie State and Ole Miss
Oregon and Ohio State
Northwestern and Auburn
Flawed State and West Virginia
Tennessee and Virginia Tech
Stanford and Oklahoma
Arizona and Nebraska
Memo to all who have no clue :
The Playoff 92 percent of us want, is so that there are MORE MEANINGFUL BOWL GAMES.
The BCS has ruined all that.
by Thomas Brown UGA on Feb 10, 2010 12:28 AM EST reply actions
This was a pretty good day...
January 1, 1993
Hall of Fame Bowl
No. 16 Boston College (8-2-1) vs. No. 17 Tennessee (8-3), at Tampa, 11 a.m., ESPN.
Mobil Cotton Bowl
No. 4 Texas A&M (12-0) vs. No. 5 Notre Dame (9-1-1), at Dallas, 1 p.m., NBC
Florida Citrus Bowl
No. 15 Ohio State (8-2-1) vs. No. 8 Georgia (9-2), at Orlando, 1 p.m. ABC
Blockbuster Bowl
No. 21 Penn State (7-4) vs. No. 13 Stanford (9-3), at Fort Lauderdale, 1:30 p.m. CBS
Fiesta Bowl
No. 10 Colorado (9-1-1) vs. No. 6 Syracuse (9-2), at Tempe, 4:30 p.m., NBC
Rose Bowl
No. 7 Michigan (8-0-3) vs. No. 9 Washington (9-2), at Pasadena, 4:45 p.m., ABC
Federal Express Orange Bowl
No. 11 Nebraska (9-2) vs. No. 3 Florida State (10-1), at Miami, 8 p.m., NBC
Sugar Bowl
No. 2 Alabama (12-0) vs. No. 1 Miami (11-0), at New Orleans, 8:30 p.m., ABC
This was somewhat in response to Thomas Brown but moreso for me to look back at a great day of college football. No BCS, No Playoff, I want my New Years to look something like this again.
by JoeinSavannah on Feb 10, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
THIS THIS THIS. SO SO SO much better than the BCS or a playoff! What a New Years that was!
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
With 8 team playoff
Miami vs. Georgia
Alabama vs. Michigan
Florida State vs. Syracuse
Texas A&M vs. Notre Dame
and THEN, on TOP of that, giving us two more sweet, sweet weeks of football…
Miami vs. Notre Dame (catholics convicts!)
Alabama vs. Florida State (Bowden vs. Stallings!)
Miami vs. Alabama
Better matchups, bigger stakes, longer season…same result, in all probability. Why isn’t that better? And, of course, all the bowls stick around so you still got to see Tenn/BC, PennSt/Stanford, etc.
And don’t forget that in this system, there is the possibility (so, so slim) that UGA has another championship on their mantle.
That doesn't make sense...
I love the Dawgs but they didn’t win the East that year(I will also make this same argument about 2007, DAMN YOU South Carolina, Vandy, and Kentucky!). Are you saying that the 2nd best team in a division of a conference should have an opportunity to play for a national title?
I’m sure there were other examples of how this doesn’t make sense but other than looking up the bowl schedule and knowing UGA’s situation, I can’t recall all other factors. Sugar Bowl for National Title was great to see. Remember Teague chasing down Miami wideout (R. Hill?) and stripping ball and taking it the other way? Awesome, although I believe it got called back by penalty. Anyway, the only school who could really complain was A&M but if memory serves me correct, they didn’t have much of a schedule during the last days of the SWC. NO BCS, CERTAINLY NO PLAYOFF!!! Give me Jan. 1, 1993 again!!!
by JoeinSavannah on Feb 10, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
It's awkward
I give you that. But it would be hard to argue that any team who beat 93 Miami, Notre Dame and Alabama all in a row to close the season wasn’t the best team in the country.
And, yes, I think that on occasion the third best team in a stacked conference should have the opportunity to play for more. Those occasions are ones in which the third best team in a conference also happens to be one of the eight best teams in America!
Yes, it would be awkward, but it’s highly unlikely and, if you made it through that gauntlet, deserved. I would wager (though I don’t know and could be totally wrong) that most of the entrants in the NCAA tourney who didn’t win their conference don’t go on to win the whole thing. But when they do, it’s because they earned it through round after round of the toughest possible competition, and the conference champ just didn’t.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
