BCS: This is the Worst Season Ever. Feel Free to Put Hawaii in the National Championship Game.
Uncategorized December 2nd. 2007, 9:37am
What a massive night of letdowns. Missouri choked. And really, it wasn’t even close. The Tigers are not better than Oklahoma. Chase Daniel cannot walk on water and will not win the Heisman. And don’t even get us started on West Virginia. Talk about a joke. How can you be 28-point favorites at home against a team with a losing record, plus get a few phantom calls from the refs and still lose? And let’s not pin this on the Pat White injury. Ok? (But we can all agree that the Pitt RB is damn good.) Yes, USC lost at home to Stanford, and Michigan at home to App State, but this might even be a bigger upset, considering what was at stake. WVU is one big, fat, fraud. Obviously more on this Monday, but we would have no objection whatsoever to some BCS suit taking a hammer to the computer and putting Hawaii in the National Championship.
62 Responses to “BCS: This is the Worst Season Ever. Feel Free to Put Hawaii in the National Championship Game.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 AM
I despise OSU and their mouth breathing fans, but don’t you dare say they don’t belong in the NC game. This might not be the B10’s best year, but if WVU and Mizzou were “worthy” (before yesterday), than OSU for damn sure is. I have no idea who the other team is. I kinda like Georgia, think LSU is still overrated, and no one who loses to Stanford is even in the conversation. I’d love to see Hawaii beat OSU, that would be good stuff.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 AM
TBL – why does this have to be the worst season ? Perhaps it’s just the opposite – no really dominant team and a bunch (like, maybe 8 – coincidentally the perfect amount for a playoff, but that’s another post) of good, evenly matched teams. Personally, I thought it was an exciting season.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Worst season ever? How bout best season ever? Most years, it’s just USC vs OSU projected to play for the championship in the preseason. Then the season goes along with USC and OSU as #1 and 2 the entire year then USC beating OSU. Boring. This year there was actually competition.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Agree with MB. This is the best season ever, and football is catching up with basketball in regards to parity.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 AM
OSU should not be in the championship game. They have a good record b/c the Big 10 is not strong this year and they play a cupcake non-conference schedule. Let the fighting rainbows into the big game. Playoffs anyone?
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Here we go with people suggesting playoffs and really have no idea how a playoff would work….
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 AM
You can make a case for every team right now. OSU actually has a tougher strength of schedule than OSU, Kansas, and USC. Kansas has only 1 loss to a former #1, OSU beat #1 twice, and USC is playing as good of football than anyone, I guess. Hawaii is really the only team that has “earned” the right to play in the game. No 2 loss team should be ahead of them.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 AM
We all know what opinions are, but here goes anyway …
Parity??? You must be f’ing kidding.
If parity=mediocrity, then yes.
I’ve seen some of the worst football ever this year. There’s a lot of bad teams and some questionable coaching going on out there. Fun? Sure it’s been fun but I can’t really say that I’ve seen excellent execution and play-calling.
Let’s at least limit this discussion to only the conference champions. I’d also like to suggest that we only consider those teams that actually won a conference championship game but that would be a disservice to USC and Hawaii.
So, given the above criteria, it’s pretty obvious it should be:
VT vs OK or
VT vs Hawaii or
OK vs Hawaii
So considering Hawaii’s schedule, although I actually think they’re really worthy … VT vs OK looks good to me.
(Note to all you SEC homers … I’m one of you and I think the SEC might be the 2nd worst conference this year. 2nd only to the big10.)
The big question will be which one of these teams will get pasted by Hawaii playing the same role that OK played last year vs BSU. We can all only hope that its osu.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 AM
LSU beat Virginia Tech BY 41 POINTS, so your argument goes out the window.
And if that happens, and LSU won the SEC without its best player AND starting quarterback, I only have one thing to say to all you haters out there:
HOW YOU LIKE LES MILES NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 AM
lol at squawk’s relentless hyperbole
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 AM
i agree that this has been a miserable season. its exciting when there’s one or two big upsets, but when they happen every week, they’re not really upsets anymore. they’re just so-called dominant teams being exposed.
i like the title game when it’s a powerhouse vs. an underdog, or at least two powerhouses going head to head. this year it’s going to be two seriously flawed teams matching up to see who’s less mediocre. yawn.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Wow, that may be the dumbest stuff i’ve seen in a long time. Congrats Squawk. Why don’t you put in a vote for Gonzaga. Wait you were actually talking football? That’s not possible anyone could be dumb enough to suggest those teams for football!
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 AM
TBL linked to it a few days ago; please see here.
As much as I don’t want to see tOSU, they deserve to be in there, I guess, if you consider wins against Purdue, Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State impressive. The other team has to be . . . LSU? OU? USC? Who really knows.
I’m just waiting to hear from all the BCS lovers, the people who idiotically claim that we don’t need a playoff because the regular season is a playoff in itself. Right.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I don’t think the BCS is right, but I argue for it because I don’t want to go from a screwed up BCS to a screwed up playoff. The Yahoo article was an interesting perspective, but there is no way that Central Michigan deserves a chance to play for the national championship. His arguement is good, but gives no advantages to the power conferences, and sorry to inform you Mike, but the power conferences have better teams than Conference USA. So Troy deserves a shot at the title over Kansas, Mizzou, and Georgia?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I don’t like either team, but it will be OSU vs. LSU.
The 4 letter boys were pushing LSU hard as kind of a make up call to Les Miles.
Ga vs. USC would make the Rose bowl worth watching.
And whoever plays Hawaii better be able to put up 35, those kids can score at will.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 AM
i agree….i have no problem with lsu in the game…but vt was a completely different team when the got killed by lsu in september…..i do have an issue with ohio state….i mean, if vt hadn’t played lsu, and played youngstown state instead i think they’d be in the game…
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 AM
The first thing I did when I opened that Wetzel column was scroll down to this bracket; once I saw teams like Troy and Central Florida, I thought he was crazy. But as you said, Eagles, he makes a good argument for including those teams.
Home field advantage.
Did you not read the section about at-large bids? There are five of them. They would go to the power conferences, thus allowing teams like Kansas, Mizzou and Georgia to be in the tournament.
Eagles, from a fan’s perspective, what would you rather have: the current BCS system as it stands, or Wetzel’s 16 team playoff?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 AM
So LSU beat V-Tech in WEEK 2. Big deal. LSU lost to Arkansas. Who would you rather lose to? A ranked LSU team in week 2. Or an unranked Arkansas late in the season? V-Tech is a better team than they were in week 2. Is LSU a better team than they were LAST WEEK?
It’s all sorts of f’d up. The real story is Florida International finally won a game!!
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 AM
chai…well VT did play LSU and they got shellacked, so deal with it. would you have been happy seeing WVU in there with an equally awful schedule?
this was the absolute worst fucking season of college football ive ever seen. im a buckeye fan, and in any other year, id be completely happy with a rose bowl bearth and id be content watching 2 better teams play for the NC. well, those “better” teams shat the bed, so it is what it is.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Well, LSU cannot lose to itself, so your question makes absolutely no sense. In fact, your entire case for VT is faulty. Who cares if they were a “completely different” team back when they played? LSU whooped their ass and should get credit for it. VT is a nice story, but they belong nowhere near the title game.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 PM
gotta be OSU and LSU…for further analysis check out Mandel’s Column at SI
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 PM
mozatta,
So, you’re saying the early games shouldn’t count?
Good lord
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 PM
hes saying that a team isnt the same team in week 2 that it is in week 11. I, for one, would be surprised if LSU beat VT like that again, even in Baton Rouge. LSU has come to earth, and aren’t anywhere near the Werewolf with a Chainsaw for a dick as they were early in the season and VT has become a somewhat decent team with a very quality defense.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 PM
The BCS is a complete mess this year, with many teams able to make a
claim that they deserve the #2 slot behind Ohio State. Fortunately,
there is a solution. Given that many teams have good, and nearly
equal, records this year, we should rely on history. Which programs
have historically been successful?
That’s right: Notre Dame should play Ohio State for the national
championship. Going into this season (we are agreeing to ignore 2007,
due to the BCS mess this year, right?) the two programs with the
leading winning percentages were Michigan and Notre Dame, both at
.746. Ohio State just beat Michigan; that leaves Notre Dame.
I think we can all agree this is the most logical solution.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 PM
It’s gotta be LSU vs. OSU. The Beaux Bengals went 6-1 [very mediocre wins except for the VT game I will agree] against ranked opponents. That at least deserves somewhat of a chance over hot Georgia or USC who either didn’t win their division or claim a share of the conference title.
If only VT didn’t sleepwalk the last 6 minutes of that first BC game . . . then they would have the perfect resume for a national title shot. But woulda coulda shouldas aren’t what counts right now.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 PM
JP Giglio, an AP voter, voted OSU vs LSU. His logic is below. It makes the more sense than else that I’ve read:
Ohio State fans begged me all year to validate their team’s ability to take care of business, regardless of the level of competition. Given that Pittsburgh, Arizona, Stanford and Colorado — all teams without a winning record scored upsets over a team ranked in the top 2 at the time of the game — it’s time to recognize the Buckeyes for their 11-1 season.
The Ohio State ends the regular season in the same spot it did a year ago — No. 1. Congrats to Jim Tressel on a another fine season and, with the exception of the Illinois game, keeping his team’s focus each and every week. As West Virginia proved on Saturday, that’s not as easy a task as it sounds, especially when everyone expects you to win.
[More:]
The second slot is more problematic. Even by Ohio State’s standard, Kansas (8) and Hawaii (10) played an easy schedule. Which brings us to the two-loss teams. Oklahoma (4) lost to Colorado and USC (5) lost to Stanford. Those bad losses move both down the list.
That leaves Missouri (6) and the two SEC teams — Georgia (3) and LSU (2). The Tigers lost to Oklahoma twice, no shame in that but I can’t justify ranking them ahead of the Sooners.
Between LSU and Georgia, I went with LSU and not because Georgia didn’t win the SEC East. UGa and LSU had the same SEC record (6-2) but the two teams shared seven common opponents. LSU went 6-1 against those teams, including wins over both of the teams that beat Georgia, while the Dawgs went 5-2.
Plus, LSU has a nonconference win over Virginia Tech (7).
Let that be a lesson to every team that feels jilted — play better competition and you will be rewarded.
N&O
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Mike NYC…Wetzel’s plan is just as bad, if not worse, than the BCS system will ever be. I went into detail on his plan on my blog. Don’t be another fool that assumes just because it would work this year that means it will work every other year.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 PM
The computers have LSU as the number 1 team. Human voters will put LSU no further than 3rd. That should be enough to put them in the number 2 spot.
Both GA and Kansas are out of the NC game because they didn’t win their conference that leaves you with VT, OSU, LSU and USC as the only teams that should be involved for the top 2 spot.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 PM
you toss the word fraud around too much. this is going to be the most pointless national title game ever, no matter what two teams get there.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 PM
playoff
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 PM
SMB – I wandered over to your blog (everyone has one of those these days, huh) but once I reached this sentence I couldn’t read any more:
I have no clue how you actually believe there could exist a PERFECT system with NO controversy. The question is: which system is the least flawed. The BCS is a disgrace.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Sorry if unclear … we’re for OSU in the title game, and think it might as well be Hawaii.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I don’t believe any system will be PERFECT, but you have to lower the amount of controversy if you’re going to switch. You have done nothing to rebut that Wetzel’s plan would create less controversy. How about you explain how a solid 2005 VT team gets left out of the playoff? YEAH, that wouldn’t cause any uproar at all. Just group yourself with all the other fools that say the BCS stinks and back it up with absolutely nothing else. I would love to see you and Mr. Wetzel defend his plan when the Arkansas State teams get in at 6-6 leaving some championship caliber teams out…laughable at best
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Man, if Hawaii actually were in the title game, Beanie Wells might run for 500 yards.
Bring ‘em on!
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Wetzel’s system seems good for a playoff system, but I don’t see it as being markedly better than the BCS. So if it isn’t and would work well THIS year but not EVERY year, I see no point in switching just for the sake of switching.
On a sidenote, go tOSU.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 PM
I love how SMB claims outrage over a #10 2005 VT team getting left out of a potential playoff, but appears to be perfectly okay with an UNDEFEATED Auburn team being left out of a chance to play for the title in 2004; or No. 3 USC being left out in 2003; or No. 3 Oregon being left out in 2001.
There has to be a cut-off somewhere. To make it at two teams defies all logic.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Oh yeah, and everyone have a great day.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I agree…LSU should be in over VT, but OSU shouldn’t be rewarded for playing a crap schedule….its a big flaw of the system.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 PM
i agree….i have no problem with lsu in the game…but vt was a completely different team when the got killed by lsu in september…..
To say that was a poor choice of words earlier chai1108 would be an understatement, unless you’re Mike Patrick.
I’m more of a fan of the plus-one idea (four or five BCS bowls on January 1st, then the championship the next week) than the playoff Wetzel concocted.
As long as the Rose Bowl, Big 10 & Pac-10 are all in existence, there will be no playoff.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The biggest flaw in the BCS system is that it relies too much on people. People are too prone to doing inane things like: A) the guy here who said:
USC and OSU have never played each other for the championship since the BCS was established. There has been one time (2005) that the two teams ranked 1 and 2 when the season started (USC and Texas) met for the championship– and USC didn’t win.
Then, you have the Harris poll voter who has Georgia 1st, Va. Tech 2nd, LSU 5th, and Ohio State not even in the top 5. That’s idiotic.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 PM
LSU is #2 in the coaches poll.
Basically, if LSU is in the top 10 of the Harris poll, IT’S OVER.
Les Miles now has an SEC Championship, and will be playing for a national championship. Deal with it. Not bad for a horrible coach.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 PM
anyone know what time they announce it?
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:55 PM
The Show starts at 8.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 PM
8:00 Eastern, but with the way Fox will try to drag it out, the championship game announcement will be 8:15-8:20. Hopefully, Fox will produce the show a little better and not have someone on the show with laryngitis.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 PM
plus one works with me…seed the top 4…and play 1vs 4, and 2 vs. 3…who then meet in the title game a week later….
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Regardless of OSU’s opponent, does anyone else feel like more this year than any other, we won’t know the best team in college football?
Oklahoma looked good last night
USC is playing well
Georgia?
Hawaii? (ok, maybe not the Rainbows, but still)
Maybe my thoughts will change in early January, but right now my interest level is low.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 PM
WHY are they still showing this awful Jets/Fins game here?
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 PM
We almost never know who’s “best.” They don’t play enough games. All we know is who is the champion. Everyone thinks Florida “proved” it was the best last year by blowing out Ohio State, but they didn’t prove that. Who’s to say that USC wouldn’t have beaten both teams 6 or 7 out of 10 times? Who’s to say that Ohio State wouldn’t have won if they rematched.
Basketball has a tournament and it doesn’t mean that the “best” team is left standing. Was ‘85 Villanova the best team? ‘88 Kansas? ‘97 Arizona? Was ‘02 Indiana the second-best team? Was ‘05 George Mason one of the four best teams? I doubt it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 PM
chai…im sick of you saying the same shit about OSU’s schedule. Yea, they didn’t really play any good team, yet somehow, blowing out pretty much every other team, except for one fluke loss, they’re suddenly not a good team? Should we just throw in Georgia because they play in the SEC, yet they got DRILLED by UT and lost to a SC team that has turned out to be pure crap? Should we put VT in there regardless that they have a 48-7 loss on their schedule? Or Oklahoma getting smoked by Leach?
So…Georgia, loss to shitty SC team. VT, lost a game 48-7. Oklahoma, lost to shitty Colorado team and got blown out. Yea, let’s throw them all in there instead of OSU.
Shitty schedule is not a reason to knock a team out, especially if they win 11 of their 12 games extremely convincingly.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I agree that this year it’s nearly impossible to pick out the “best team”. Is it any easier other years though? Things happen in playoffs so that the “best team” may not end up winning. Were the Rockies the best team to come out of the NL this year or were they just hot at the right time? I’m not sure there is any way to sort out which team is better then the other this year.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 PM
@sportsmyth:
I’d have no problem with a 6-6 Central Michigan team in a playoff (in any season) as long as they’ve won their conference. You win your conference, you should get a shot at winning the title, no matter how thin your chances may be. Otherwise we should divide Division 1 football in thirds rather than halves (something the pollsters have done implicitly, anyway).
In general:
It’s the same old same old in NCAAF — you don’t come for the right conference, have the right “history,” you can’t play for the title. Personally, I’d love to see UCF get a 12 seed, shock WVU, upset Georgia and go George Mason on us all.
But then those guys play for UCF, and god knows they don’t deserve a chance, anyway …
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 PM
“Were the Rockies the best team to come out of the NL this year or were they just hot at the right time? I’m not sure there is any way to sort out which team is better then the other this year.”
Right. The question is whether you want to measure who’s best the whole season or just who gets hot at the end of the year. Either way is fine and all, but an eight-team playoff in January isn’t going to magicallly end controversey over college football.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Dude10, I totally agree that these smaller teams should get into a playoff. The bottom line is that they probably have no chance at winning anything more than 1 game. They are 6-6 against a poor schedule for a reason. Football isn’t a sport that you can pull off 3 or 4 upsets against top teams in a row. If you put them in a small playoff you probably leave out teams that have a legit shot at the title. On the other hand, even though Hawaii may have played a poor schedule I have no problem with them in a playoff. Not because they won their conference, but because they were 12-0. If you can go 12-0 against any schedule i’d be fine with you in a playoff. I’m not willing to give up a spot to a team that had all 6 of its wins in a weak conference. At least not in a small playoff format. The NCAA tournament wouldn’t involve those lower conferences with an auto bid if they didnt have the field of 64.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Like a lot of the posters on here, I’ve really enjoyed this season. The upsets are great. But at the same time, it all kind of makes your mind spin if you’re constantly trying to track who exactly the best teams are. The last two weeks, both the #1 and #2 teams have lost. How crazy is that?
As for the national championship, it’s anybody’s guess as to who will actually make it (I think Ohio State should be one of the teams), but please, spare us Hawaii. I’ve been watching UW all season long, and Hawaii needed a minor miracle to beat the Huskies at home. That’s WAC championship football, not national championship football.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 PM
All –
Hawaii needed a minor miracle and got it.
WVU supposedly didnt need a miracle. Didn’t get one, either. Missouri didn’t, either. LSU couldn’t get one in either of its triple OT losses.
I’d rather see a team play for the title who has gotten those miracles – better to be lucky than good, all that – than one that didn’t.
And Hawaii would eliminate all the LSU or Oklahoma or USC or Georgia or VT garbage we’ll hear all week. I’ve campaigned for LSU for the last few months … but hot damn, losing to Arkansas at home was bad.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 PM
TBL, you put Hawaii in the SEC or PAC-10 this year and how many games do they lose? Three? Four? Their schedule alone prevents them from playing in this two-team playoff.
It’s going to be OSU v LSU and the Tigers are going to beat them by 20.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:50 PM
If Les Miles actually learns how to coach between now and then LSU should have the edge on Ohio State at a majority of the positions. The game hinges on Boeckman’s ability to exploit the LSU defense…much like every other team has. If Boeckman can get the ball to Ohio State’s WRs there is no way it’s not a close game. If Boeckman pulls what he has done 75% of the year and just chucks the ball up for miracle catches it’s not going to be a very good game.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 PM
The Rockies probably were the best team in the N.L. this year. They finished one win (through 162) behind the league leader (Arizona) and they had the best run differential of any team in the league.
The Rockies are not the best example, but you’re larger point is well-taken.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Were the ‘05 Steelers the best team in the NFL that year or did they just get hot at the right time? Does it even really matter? If you are arguing against these teams, why even have a playoff in the first place? Why not just hand out the “title” to the team with the best record, or the team ranked No. 1 in the BCS at the end of the regular season?
Championships are not intended to be handed out simply to the best team in the regular season; they are for the team who does not lose in the playoffs. The regular season is designed to prove a team’s worthiness to reach the playoffs. It is only in CFB, however, that the “playoff” is limited to two teams.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Here we go again. I’m not sure how you missed this entire point that everyone else got, but the point is that NO playoff alone determines who the best team is. Did the 05 Steelers get hot??? Are you going to honestly say that without a doubt they were “better” than the 14-2 Colts. The Colts handed it to them during the regular season and the Steelers beat them by 3 in the playoffs. Does it even matter? YES, when you’re talking about how you define the best team.
Let’s try this again…there is no way to say who the “best team” is. It’s a term that is entirely made up of opinion. TBL asked if anyone thought the championship would tell us who the best team is this year. I was simply stating that it all depends how you define “best team”. So no, I don’t think the Steelers were the best team that year. If your definition is based on the 4 playoff games the Steelers played in 05 then thats your opinion.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I AGREE with you. 100%. But why would you allow this fact to determine that a playoff should therefore not be instituted?
I’ll ask you again: why have an NFL playoffs this year if we will already know by the end of the regular season that the Patriots are the best team?
Why have a CFB two-team “playoff” last year when Ohio State was the clear-cut No. 1 team by the end of the regular season?
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Umm I’m gonna go with “more money” and giving a team a chance to win a championship. And since you agree with me, you and I both have gone over at length that winning a championship doesn’t make you the best team all season. If you’ve read anything that i’ve said, which you obviously havent, you’d know that i’d love to have a playoff. Unfortunately, I’m not going to drink the kool aid and say switch for the fun of it. I’m only going to endorse a playoff when it fixes something which would be creating less controversy (which will only be a field larger than the top 20 teams). I mean since we can all probably agree a playoff would make more money, I’m sure the NCAA is keeping a playoff out of the picture for no reason. But hey why not, lets just change without eliminating anything. We would be able to hear the same amount of argument over that system.