BCS schools vs. Non-BCS schools

I do not think that there should be a difference between teams being a "BCS", or "Non-BCS". I think this because in the last couple of years the "Non-BCS" teams have provrn that they can beat the "BCS" teams. For exmple, in 2007 the Boise State Broncos defeated the Oklahoma Sooners in the Tostitos Fiesta bowl capping a 13-0 season for them, a feat that no one believed possible. Also, this past year the Utah Utes deafeted the Alabama Crimson Tide(the team that held the #1 ranking for the longets time in that season) in the Sugar bowl capping their second undefeated season in 4 years. So why are we still labeling these teams BCS teams and Non-BCS teams? If your school is rated as a BCS school then you alreadt have an advantage because voters are more apt to put your school in a bigger game because they are know to be "better". So, in these two seasons that I have mentioned about the winner of the national championship had a loos to their belt, and these two, so called "Non-BCS", schools beat a "BCS" school in a bowl game and finished the season undefeated. I think that it is just not fair to these schools because they continue to prove that they can play with anyone, but they are still left out of the discussion for the National Championship.
Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. JayJanuary 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM

    I agree. BCS system is stupid. It is an unfair weighting system. BRING ON THE PLAYOFFS!!!

    I also think that in college OT games that the ball should be spotted on the 40 yard line instead of the 25. Don't you agree? Then the teams would actually have to earn a first down to score points in OT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. william callJanuary 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM

    Yes, I do agree with the movig of the ball in ovetime. It is to easy for the team that is on offense to score because they are already set up in feild goal range. If the ball is moved to the 40 yard line then the ofensive team must gain a first down in order to have a chance at any points.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brandon SpeckJanuary 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM

    After the past two years its obvious that the BCS system has flaws. Alabama was ranked #1 for most of the season this year and then they lose Utah, a team that isn't considered a BCS team. Come on now, either Alabama was over-rated or the BCS system is flawed. I pick the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. william callJanuary 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM

    I don't know how much Alabama was over-rated (but they were a little over-rated) as much as Utah was under-rated. Utah was really good and did not get the hype that they deserved because they are not a so called "BCS" school.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJanuary 28, 2009 at 5:40 PM

    I think Ohio State should automatically be put in the national title every year because of the difficulty of the big ten. They work so hard during the season and deserve to be placed on the biggest stage possible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. william callJanuary 28, 2009 at 6:25 PM

    Dear anonymous writer, Ohio State should not be in the national title picture for a while. All they do when they get there is lose, by a lot. The big ten is not very good at all(eventhough it is my favorite conference). Their strength of schedule is bad too because of the big ten/mac schedule they play, not to mention the 1aa team they play(they did play USC and lost by 32).so they don't need to be in the picture at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM

    MICHIGAN SUCKS!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)