Comments on: BCS: And Then There Were Three

By: ultraw

ultraw — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:26:55 +0000

What's so awful about not having a definitive national champion? I kind of like the ambiguity myself. Gives more value to the league championships. Gives something for people to argue about for generations.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:58:47 +0000

SD: Sure. With any playoff system, you'll still have that issue. The team that misses the cut for the 65-team NCAA basketball tournament and winds up seeded #1 for the NIT has the same gripe. But it matters less the further down the food chain you go. I'd prefer an 8- or 16-team tournament. But 4 is much, much better than 2.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:27:23 +0000

This just recurses the problem down another level. Now you get an argument over which of the one loss teams deserves to fill the #4 slot. So far this year it seems pretty clear it's Miami (God it was painful to type that), but if they lose the ACC championship game, who becomes the new #4? Georgia? LSU? UCLA? Penn State? Virginia Tech?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:01:16 +0000

Josh: A fair point. I really should have written "Virginia Tech lost a late season game after a strong start, as they always do."

By: Josh Crockett

Josh Crockett — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:20:27 +0000

"Miami took care of Virginia Tech as they always seem to do"? VT has won 7 of the last 11 in the series (1995-1999 5 straight, then 2003 and 2004; in '03 we did essentially the same thing to them as they did to us this year). We got our butts kicked yesterday, but don't let that obscure the true history of this rivalry. The "plus-one" format is looking pretty good.