U
UVACougCheck out their new "playoffs suck" website (http://www.playoffproblem.com), it is full of comedic gems.
Here's the sites mission statement:
"This site is for the millions of us who love college football, but may have differing views on how a team earns a national title. Many of us remember the pre-BCS era, where No. 1 played No. 2 in a bowl game only eight times in 56 seasons. Few want to return to those days. By contrast, during the 11 years since the BCS was created, #1 has played #2 every year by BCS measurements (and in 8 of 11 years according to the AP poll). Despite this, some have advocated for a hypothetical playoff system, which would be more controversial and contentious than the BCS. Let the debate continue."
Of course #1 plays #2 by the BCS's measurements every year. They have to by rule. The problem is with the BCS's measurement. I actually don't think the BCS methodology is that flawed, but it is more opinion than reality. There is no way to know that Auburn was not deserving of being #1 or #2 in 2004 or TCU this year. Just because you invent some magic formula and use it to assign people to a title game doesn't mean your formula or the title game is very good. There are much better ways to determine who is best.
Another gem comes from their link to an explanation of revenue sharing in the BCS:
http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/10297120
This is my favorite quote from that page:
"It is perhaps noteworthy that 81 percent of the revenue went to the six AQ conferences, although those conferences provided 90 percent of the participating teams-nine of ten."
As if those 6 conferences were providing a service by agreeing to provide 9 of the 10 teams for BCS bowls. Take a look at the table at the bottom of the page as well -- love how they think it is fair to compare the revenue of 5 nonBCS conferences to each BCS conference individually.
Here's the sites mission statement:
"This site is for the millions of us who love college football, but may have differing views on how a team earns a national title. Many of us remember the pre-BCS era, where No. 1 played No. 2 in a bowl game only eight times in 56 seasons. Few want to return to those days. By contrast, during the 11 years since the BCS was created, #1 has played #2 every year by BCS measurements (and in 8 of 11 years according to the AP poll). Despite this, some have advocated for a hypothetical playoff system, which would be more controversial and contentious than the BCS. Let the debate continue."
Of course #1 plays #2 by the BCS's measurements every year. They have to by rule. The problem is with the BCS's measurement. I actually don't think the BCS methodology is that flawed, but it is more opinion than reality. There is no way to know that Auburn was not deserving of being #1 or #2 in 2004 or TCU this year. Just because you invent some magic formula and use it to assign people to a title game doesn't mean your formula or the title game is very good. There are much better ways to determine who is best.
Another gem comes from their link to an explanation of revenue sharing in the BCS:
http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/10297120
This is my favorite quote from that page:
"It is perhaps noteworthy that 81 percent of the revenue went to the six AQ conferences, although those conferences provided 90 percent of the participating teams-nine of ten."
As if those 6 conferences were providing a service by agreeing to provide 9 of the 10 teams for BCS bowls. Take a look at the table at the bottom of the page as well -- love how they think it is fair to compare the revenue of 5 nonBCS conferences to each BCS conference individually.