Comments on: On the BCS http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/12/on-the-bcs/ News and commentary on the world of sports. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:33:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5 By: John Gibson http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/12/on-the-bcs/comment-page-1/#comment-31827 John Gibson Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:48:43 +0000 http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/12/on-the-bcs/#comment-31827

Under the BCS, the winner of the 1 v 2 game is automatically crowned champion.

Only partially true. The AP pulled out of the BCS system so it is still possible to have a split title even if extremly unlikely.

Say UF beats OSU in an awful game where both teams look like crap and Michigan blows out USC… It wouldn’t take too many AP voters who put UF ahead of Michigan simply because they were game shopping to rank Michigan as a better team than UF in the final poll. The result would be a split title.

]]> By: James Joyner http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/12/on-the-bcs/comment-page-1/#comment-31323 James Joyner Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:36:54 +0000 http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/12/on-the-bcs/#comment-31323 I agree that the BCS achieves its stated goal of ensuring #1 vs. #2. The problem with that, though, is that there is often legitimate debate as to who deserves to be #1, #2, #3 and so forth. The BCS essentially ignores that controversy and just has the college equivalent of a Super Bowl without any sort of play-offs or system where champions of a given conference meet.

Indeed, had the voters not changed their minds this year, you could have had two Big Ten teams meet up in the championship game. That would have been absurd absent a multi-game playoff.

At least under the old system, a Michigan or Auburn that felt it got screwed in the pre-bowl rankings had a change to impress the voters by having a decisive bowl showing. Under the BCS, the winner of the 1 v 2 game is automatically crowned champion.

]]>