Because they're undefeated. It's not there fault who they played. They're a Division I-A school that took their schedule and have gone undefeated thus far. If they end up undefeated, they should end up in a BCS bowl over a school from a BCS conference that couldn't win all the games on their schedule, regardless of it's difficulty.
i understand your point. but why just ignore SOS ? so TCU gets rewarded for playing a bunch of no-bodies and BCS schools get punished for playing talented teams? that just doesnt make sense to me..
Nope, I'm not punishing TCU for playing in a non-BCS conference and I'm punishing a BCS school for not taking care of business on the field.
No crap. Also, I just wanted to point out that I only ignore SOS when there's a difference in record. Let's say that FSU is the only 1-loss team in the nation this year, but somehow doesn't get invited to the Sugar Bowl. Is it there fault that their SOS isn't as good as another team because Colorado and Notre Dame have had bad years?
hey i agree, a playoff is needed, but until the money is right (the BCS schools agree to take the risk of lesser payouts for 1st,2nd round games over the big payout for 1 game) , the status quo won't change with that said, the current BCS system is the best solution in a non-playoff world.
if FSU is the only 1 loss team, they will be in the Sugar Bowl now if FSU, OSU, Miami, VT, USC, LSU all finish with 1 loss, there is going to be endless debate on who should be in
I'm kind of torn on the TCU thing. On the one hand, it might bring the BCS to anti-trust court against the government if TCU wins out and does not get a BCS bid (which they won't) But on the other hand, TCU is horribly overrated and I'm sick and tired of all the stupid hornfrog fans acting like they're a top flight program. Your team sucks, you hear me? You keep beating really crappy teams by 3 and 7 points. You suck, so shut up.
Hello, Houston scheduled Michigan. What's the score b/w TCU and Houston again 62-55? What's the score b/w Houston and Michigan? 50-3. Now it's not only the score that mattters, it's the apprearant donimation or lack there of matters. And Michigan is a 2 loss team. Why does TCU deserve a BCS bid if it continues to play nobody again?
The problem with playoffs is that college football would lose money from the bowl games. Take the bowl games and implant them in a playoff system, that simple.
ND and Colorado might be down, but the teams TCU play are ALWAYS no name teams. At the end of the day, average opponents of FSU like Colorado are still ranks higher than average opponents of TCU. THat's exactly why SOS thing WORKs.
its not that simple... Why would an OU want to play (& risk losing) a couple of bowl games in the 1st and 2nd round of a playoff system and potentially lose the money it would be guarented if just playing ONE Sugar Bowl ? They are playing in the 1st round of a playoff in the Houston Bowl..payout is 750,000 (i dunno the real payout) they play 2nd round in the Sun Bowl: payout of 1.2 million Sugar Bowl payout: 10 million or whatever it is why would OU want to change to a system where it is forced to play in lesser payout bowls in order to get to the big payout bowl when it doesn't have to? why would they want to risk losing in a < million payout bowl ? they currently skip right to the big payout.. i dunno if this post expressed my point exactly but I hope so..
The point isn't whether the schools want to do this, it's that they should have to. Of course it's not benefiting them, so why would they want to? It's about fairness. Schools aren't supposed to just monopolize a sport. Just name the rounds of a playoff after bowl games, and have homefield advantage given to the higher seeds.
but the AD/Presidents of these schools have to approve any plan and that was my point, they won't unless they are forced. l
Team A goes undefeated in non-BCS conference has a schedule that is in the bottom 10% in D-IA plays 1 ranked team (#25 at that) at home and needed other team to miss FG at the end to win Team B finishes season with 10-2 record plays in BCS conference (top 25% SOS) 2 loses were to ranked teams on the road plays 7 ranked teams during the year (ranked when they meet) Only one of those two teams can argue that they might be the best team in the nation. We know at least 2 teams are better than Team B. We think, but cannot prove, any teams are better than Team A until they get the shot.
I don't think the playoffs are ever gonna happen at all. I for one like the current system. How many people you think would care about the Oklahoma - Baylor game that's not from the schools if there's a playoff system? Even if you think Oklahoma's gonna win, you'll tune in for the first quarter or half, because just in case something freaking happen, it will be the best game of the year ( the way I felt about the Oklahoma vs OSU games past few season or Oklahoma vs Colorado games). But if there's a playoff system, there will be apathy towards those games, Oklahoma will very likely win, but if you missed it it's not as big of deal if you don't go to those two schools. The reason I like the current system is that every game matters and everyweekend's like playoffs. That's why I would watch/follow a lot of games, just because they my affect UT's ranking next week.
So you think a 5-5 Cal is better than 8-1 USC? Just be picky at your logic. If you lose a game, I believe you don't have any right to claim that you deserve a shot at the national title game, because you haven't done everything in your power to get there. Only two teams have beaten everyone placed in front of them - OU and TCU. I don't think TCU is the #2 team in the country, but they have a legitimate argument to make that they at least deserve a BCS bowl. I don't think USC, FSU, etc can complain if they don't make the title game - they had the opportunity to win another game and didn't do it. TCU doesn't have that option. While I understand the scheduling thing, I find it hard to penalize the players because their administration set up some bad scheduling 3 or 4 years ago.
