Talk:Bowl Championship Series controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BCS Playoff Solution[edit]

The BCS has two main problems; Fans of college football want a playoff where every Division I team has a shot at the National Championsip atthe begining of the year. BCS supporters want to keep the college football bowl series fair for conferences and teams that bring in much of the revenue that has made college football one of the most succefully profitable franchises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.101 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stating the obvious. However, talk pages are for discussing improvements/questions on the article, not to discuss the topic itself. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out from this misplaced post that this is one problem (not two). Also, the poster maintains that the BCS has made college football one of the most [sic] successful sports. This is an example of secundum quid as the poster provides no evidence that the current system would be more profitable than hypothetical and/or proposed playoff systems.Obamafan70 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Updated as of 1-10-09 The summary has been improved, and is now well-sourced. The tone is now more neutral and sourced with credible, independent, third party citations (see Quinnipiac University reference, etc.). BCSPro's discussion contained informal language and slang, and his revert contained no justification. Unsourced personal summaries are subject to removal as per basic Wikipedia guidelines. Aside from the obvious unencyclopedic language, BCSPro is a passion advocate of the current system, which is a minority opinion by 2.5 times. Caution about his objectivity should be exercised, again aside from the obvious blurby, informal, promotionalese language used in his summary.Obamafan70 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002-2003[edit]

I do not see a compelling case that 2002-2003 is the lone exception to the controversial BCS selections. Group29 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was really nothing controversial about it. So the Orange Bowl selected Iowa and USC. Big Deal. I would also support removing 2005-06 from this list for similar reasons. NewYork483 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to agree wih NY above. There are many examples of when the Rose Bowl did not feature Big Ten-Pac 10 (2002, 05, 06) Those dont appear controversial Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, however the 02 and 06 Rose Bowls were National Championship games so there couldnt have been controversy as to B10-P10 (although there was as to the two teams selected to play in it in 02), and the 05 selection was controversial. That being said, teams going to bowls that do not fit their conference tie-ins does not seem like controversy to me. NewYork483 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this page is about controversies then even the small ones should be noted, such as 02-03. i do agree with the removal 05-06 because the Notre Dame clause is not controversial and I do not remember any controversy about Oregon/ND when it happened a few years ago. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • agreed on 05-06. Nobody was complaining about Notre Dame gettin' in over Oregon; and you do make a good point on the specific nature of this page, as to include both big and small ones like what happened in 02-03 Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004-2005[edit]

Does the Reggie Bush case belong on here? The controversy is in the case itself. It's not really a BCS controversy relating to selection of teams. Bbigjohnson (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009[edit]

This section needs to be reworked. Utah (#6) wasn't just selected over Boise State, they got an automatic at-large slot, for being ranked in the top 8 (they were #6, I believe). Under the rules, if the conference champion from a non-BCS conference and you're ranked in the top 8 (or top 12 and ranked higher than a BCS conference champion), it's an automatic slot. However, if there is more than one team, the automatic slot goes to the highest ranked team. So, while Boise State was technically eligible, because Utah was ranked higher, they got the slot. TCU wasn't eligible, because they didn't win the Mountain West. Dunstvangeet (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's top 12 OR top 16 and higher than a BCS Conference Champion. But Yeah, you're right. Bcspro (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

09/10[edit]

Why is there no mention of why TX and AL were chosen over any of the other 3? I think to leave out their opponents records is being disingenuous and is allowing for a non-neutral point of view to affect the credibility of the article.

Opponents records: Alabama: 89-68 Texas: 84-75 TCU: 75-74 Boise: 71-88 Cincy: 72-75

76.19.168.81 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TCU[edit]

fixed a statement about TCU's opponents' record in the 2010 season, and cited to schedule (with records linked through) Jones629 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011/2012 Season[edit]

Can we add the fact, now, that despite the claim that "Every game counts", the SEC is heavily weighted (due almost entirely to the poll system) to be ranked higher than any other conference teams? The fact that Oklahoma State had a generally stronger schedule and an equal final record (despite a "worse" loss) should have made them ranked higher than Alabama. This isn't just a computer problem, this is a voter problem, too. It's also worth noting that OSU-phile T. Boone Pickens is going to raise a holy ruckus about this, making it a developing situation as well...

Stretching the BCS controversy streak to yet another year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.189.159 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move[edit]

I feel as though the page would be better if BCS was actually spelled out in the title. Right now, the acronym is very ambiguous for anyone unfamiliar with college football. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying for votes[edit]

Is whining a legitimate Wikipedia source? This section is full of original research and opinions, as well as factual misinformation. Delete this section. 50.175.186.16 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bowl Championship Series controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bowl Championship Series controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bowl Championship Series controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bowl Championship Series controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowl_Championship_Series_controversies&oldid=1198989503"