BCS needs to be changed...?

Question

It should be SEC has it's own playoff to decide a champion. Then the rest of the confrences have to playoff to see who will play the SEC champion for the NC.

I'm sorry if your offended by this, but it's sad when SEC teams have CONSTANT really tough schedules, and often times end up eliminating each other. Then you have all these other teams with schedules such as USC's, who just happens to be #1, and they're schedule is rough but nothing compared to SEC play.

I'd put my money down and say that you give ANY current Top 10 team that isn't in the SEC an SEC conference schedule they won't be in the Top 10 for long.

What do you think?

Before you start talking about last year think about this. If OSU had played an SEC schedule would they have gone undefeated? Or even been considered for a NC?
Not just OSU, let's apply that question to the other TOP ten opponents. Oh I forgot most of them were SEC.

Answer 1

It should be enough to know that the SEC is the best conference. Last year the Florida Gators could not make it through their SEC scheduled unscaved but by the time they got to the BCS they were primed. It should be noted that had USC beaten UCLA in their final game of the year, we would have seen USC vs Ohio State and likely never known just how good florida was. I think the BCS should be changed but not to allow the SEC champ to play for the title but to have a final game. Wouldn't you have loved to have seen Florida vs USC last year after Florida beat Ohio State and USC beat Michigan. Now that would be great for college football.

Answer 2

That dosen't make sense at all. What if the SEC champ has 2 losses at the end of the season (like Georgia in 2005). They should automatically be in the nationa championship?

1999- Florida State (ACC) vs. Virginia Tech (Big East)
2000- Florida State (ACC) vs. Oklahoma (Big 12)
2001- Miami (Big East) vs.Nebraska (Big 12)
2002- Ohio State (Big 10) vs. Miami (Big East)
2004- Southern Cal (Pac-10) vs. Oklahoma (Big 12)
2005- Southern Cal (Pac-10) vs. Texas (Big 12)

That is 6 times since 1999 (an 8 year span) where the SEC has not been involved in the national title game. And yes I know in 2004 Auburn was undefeated. But the fact of the matter is they were not chosen. They could of easily been in, except they did not have as impessive years as Southern Cal or Oklahoma in 2004. (It was due to out of confernce play. Auburn played awful teams while Southern Cal beat Notre Dame and Virginia Tech and Oklahoma beat Oregon. Auburn had wins over the Citadel and Lousiana Tech. Plus in the Sugar Bowl Auburn struggled against VT when USC had destroyed them).

Every team has hard schedules in their own right. If teams are undefeated or have an impressive 11-1 record in an decent conference at the end of the season they should play for it. Whether you like the conference or not.

Answer 3

You are right about one thing. SEC teams tend to really beat each other up during the season and the bowls are usually easier than regular season. But there are some extremely good teams out there this year and they would also do well in the SEC. Maybe not year in and year out, but not even SEC teams win every year. It's a tough place to play.

Answer 4

Yeah, of course! Florida lost one game last year to an SEC team and they didn't get the chance to play for a national championship! It's tragic!

Answer 5

Man I totally agree with you. Its going to suck b/c it should be UF LSU but once they play each other and the other loses and if LSU or UF lose in the SEC championship then it will probably be a team with a definate weaker sch prob playing USC b/c there sch is so easy this yr. They just need a playoff system similar to the NFL.

Answer 6

I think there are more cupkakes in the SEC than you are willing to admit!

Answer 7

Yeah sure.

Answer 8

I think it sounds like you're whining...