Wetzel again blasts the BCS for some fuzzy math

[Johnny Dangerously]

(Now that it, and not Fox, is the BCS network)

 

[Situation]

I just love how it's never mentioned that the BCS is still better than any system we ever had before, as far as determining a national champion.

That's a poor reason for supporting and attempting to validate the system.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Rooting for BCS chaos has become an annual tradition, and I love it as much as anyone, but this is not the year to beat that drum. Nobody has a compelling argument.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Actually, Situation, I would argue the old bowls followed by polls system WAS better, or at least more honest, in that it made it clear opinion was the determining factor in deciding the imaginary national champion, rather than the subterfuge of having opinion be the determining factor in selecting TWO teams who then play a game for the imaginary championship.
I agree with LTL this annual argument lacks some the old zip this season, because the argument over the two teams has pretty much died out. I can't think of a better imaginary championship matchup then LSU-Alabama.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

For all of the "BCS chaos!" what-ifs and hand-wringing every October and November, by December it usually works itself out. The rate at which it doesn't is probably no greater, and quite possibly less frequent, than the frequency of controversy about No. 1 for the rest of big-boy college football history.

 

[hondo]

Wetzel is always on point with his BCS banter.

It's his baby and he does make solid points, and he's got a book to sell I guess, but Jesus Christ. He's starting to sound like a whiny bench at this point.

Agreed. I read every Wetzel BCS bash as an ad for his book.

Yeah. I mean, he DOES make valid points. He knows this shirt inside and out. But after you've heard the same thing a million times....

I just love how it's never mentioned that the BCS is still better than any system we ever had before, as far as determining a national champion.

But yes, reading the same BCS bashing over and over . . . sports columnists all over the country use it as their standard Fall midweek filler column.

Every system used to determine a national champion, starting with the simple AP poll, has been horseshirt. So calling the BCS the best system we've ever had is like dysentery is the best disease you can have, compared to Smallpox, malaria and Beri-Beri.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

I just love how it's never mentioned that the BCS is still better than any system we ever had before, as far as determining a national champion.

That's a poor reason for supporting and attempting to validate the system.

If you care to note where I either "supported" or "validated" the system, you just let me know.

It's not false to point out that no one ever tried to put together a proper yearly No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup before. It would therefore follow that no one should be surprised that this, the first real attempt at it, is far from perfect. I don't understand the constant bitching about it.

Actually, Situation, I would argue the old bowls followed by polls system WAS better

I understand that as it pertains to rankings.

But I like that the current system allows for TCU making the Rose Bowl.

 

[LongTimeListener]

For all of the "BCS chaos!" what-ifs and hand-wringing every October and November, by December it usually works itself out. The rate at which it doesn't is probably no greater, and quite possibly less frequent, than the frequency of controversy about No. 1 for the rest of big-boy college football history.

Yeah, somehow all of Alabama's and Notre Dame's previous titles are accepted as "fact," as are all the screw jobs (such as FSU stealing the title from Notre Dame in '93).

When they go to four teams in "semifinal" bowls and a plus-one, that's enough for me. Strikes a great balance between the regular season having tons of meaning and a team still having to win the championship on the field.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

The series of highly disputed national championship debates in the 1990s, such as Notre Dame-Miami-Colorado, and the aforementioned Florida State-ND one are what inspired the BCS -- besides money -- wasn't it?

 

[BrianGriffin]

Wetzel is always on point with his BCS banter.

It's his baby and he does make solid points, and he's got a book to sell I guess, but Jesus Christ. He's starting to sound like a whiny bench at this point.

For me, if would come across as whiny if it weren't so dang true.

 

[JackReacher]

Wetzel is always on point with his BCS banter.

It's his baby and he does make solid points, and he's got a book to sell I guess, but Jesus Christ. He's starting to sound like a whiny bench at this point.

For me, if would come across as whiny if it weren't so dang true.

See, I think he can -- and does -- speak the truth while at the same time coming off as annoying.

 

[MrHavercamp]

I just love how it's never mentioned that the BCS is still better than any system we ever had before, as far as determining a national champion.

That's a poor reason for supporting and attempting to validate the system.

If you care to note where I either "supported" or "validated" the system, you just let me know.

It's not false to point out that no one ever tried to put together a proper yearly No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup before. It would therefore follow that no one should be surprised that this, the first real attempt at it, is far from perfect. I don't understand the constant bitching about it.

Actually, Situation, I would argue the old bowls followed by polls system WAS better

I understand that as it pertains to rankings.

But I like that the current system allows for TCU making the Rose Bowl.

I would say "the constant bitching about it" comes from the point you made just before that -- "it's far from perfect." What's wrong with championing a better system?