Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

This week's version of what's wrong with the BCS...


BS Miscreant
 Share

Recommended Posts

Brian, you always say preseason rankings are not fair because it's pre-judging teams. Well here is a bet I'm willing to make. I'll take the top 8 NFL preseason favorites and give you the field. Why would I do something so crazy? Because it's not that difficult. :D

 

I'll take this year's NFL preseason favorites

 

1. Steelers

2. Colts

3. Patriots

4. Chargers

5. Vikings

6. Saints

7.. Eagles

8. Cardinals

 

You can have the rest of the field. :wacko:

Not sure exactly what your point is. But whatever it is, it looks like you're once again using a horrible example. My guess is that you're saying that the NFL is just as predictable as the NCAA, is that safe? Well, first off, the massive, insanely large difference is that, regardless of where you're picked pre-season in the NFL, it flat out doesn't matter. Everyone is allowed to win the Super Bowl. All you have to do is make the play-offs and then win all your games from there. This is simply not true for college football.

 

None the less, let's play along with rocker. OK, you're taking the top 25% of the NFL teams. That's like the top 30 teams in the NCAA. I wonder how often the eventual NC Champ starts the season ranked outside the top 30. How 'bout never. On the other hand, as unlikely as it is, it does happen in the NFL. Neither the Rams or Ravens were sexy picks to win it all the years they did. There's two right there off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brian, you always say preseason rankings are not fair because it's pre-judging teams. Well here is a bet I'm willing to make. I'll take the top 8 NFL preseason favorites and give you the field. Why would I do something so crazy? Because it's not that difficult. :D

 

I'll take this year's NFL preseason favorites

 

1. Steelers

2. Colts

3. Patriots

4. Chargers

5. Vikings

6. Saints

7.. Eagles

8. Cardinals

 

You can have the rest of the field. :wacko:

 

 

taking yet again, the flawed NFL/NCAA football comparison out of the equation............still a terrible example

 

8 out of 32 = 1/4 of the teams total and more than a 1/3 of potential playoff teams , wow Rocker way to get out on a limb there partnah

 

I knew a guy who would always give you any 4 teams out of the 64 in NCAA hoops tourney and wager they would not win- he won more than he lost.

 

anyhoo, with 12 teams making the playoffs and knowing 8-10 had no shot at making the playoffs from the get-go, a fair bet would be for you to take 2 teams, which is a more reasonable number, not the ridiculous 8 you are proposing.

 

Rocker, how we looking now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taking yet again, the flawed NFL/NCAA football comparison out of the equation............still a terrible example

 

8 out of 32 = 1/4 of the teams total and more than a 1/3 of potential playoff teams , wow Rocker way to get out on a limb there partnah

 

I knew a guy who would always give you any 4 teams out of the 64 in NCAA hoops tourney and wager they would not win- he won more than he lost.

 

anyhoo, with 12 teams making the playoffs and knowing 8-10 had no shot at making the playoffs from the get-go, a fair bet would be for you to take 2 teams, which is a more reasonable number, not the ridiculous 8 you are proposing.

 

Rocker, how we looking now?

Come on guys. You do know these arn't the favorites to win the Super Bowl, right? These are the favorites to win their divisions. :wacko:

The point is that college preseason rankings isn't as unfair as people like Brian would like us all to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure exactly what your point is. But whatever it is, it looks like you're once again using a horrible example. My guess is that you're saying that the NFL is just as predictable as the NCAA, is that safe? Well, first off, the massive, insanely large difference is that, regardless of where you're picked pre-season in the NFL, it flat out doesn't matter. Everyone is allowed to win the Super Bowl. All you have to do is make the play-offs and then win all your games from there. This is simply not true for college football.

 

None the less, let's play along with rocker. OK, you're taking the top 25% of the NFL teams. That's like the top 30 teams in the NCAA. I wonder how often the eventual NC Champ starts the season ranked outside the top 30. How 'bout never. On the other hand, as unlikely as it is, it does happen in the NFL. Neither the Rams or Ravens were sexy picks to win it all the years they did. There's two right there off the top of my head.

Weren't the Ravens another team that didn't win their own division? Not sure about the Rams, but I'm not one of those NBA like fans that like to see everyone make the playoffs. In fact I use to be a much bigger MLB fan before they started splitting divisions and added wildcard teams as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, you always say preseason rankings are not fair because it's pre-judging teams. Well here is a bet I'm willing to make. I'll take the top 8 NFL preseason favorites and give you the field. Why would I do something so crazy? Because it's not that difficult. :D

 

I'll take this year's NFL preseason favorites

 

1. Steelers

2. Colts

3. Patriots

4. Chargers

5. Vikings

6. Saints

7.. Eagles

8. Cardinals

 

You can have the rest of the field. :wacko:

 

You lost me. Those preseason "favorites" have no impact on the ultimate outcome in the NFL. At the start of the season, the Raiders have no less of an opporutunity to win it all than the Steelers do. In college football, you can't say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys. You do know these arn't the favorites to win the Super Bowl, right? These are the favorites to win their divisions. :wacko:

The point is that college preseason rankings isn't as unfair as people like Brian would like us all to believe.

 

 

What point? You still haven't proven to me than college preason rankings are fair. You used your analogy of the nfl, which again makes no sense at all because the Lions didn't have any less of a shot to win it all than the Colts did before the season even started.

 

Did Auburn have the same opporutunity to win the BCS NC game in 2004 that Oklahoma and USC did, when they were ranked #1 and #2 before the season. No they didn't, and you can't say they did with a straight face. Does that mean that Oklahoma or USC was any less deserving than Auburn? No it doesn't, but they certainly weren't any more deserving. That's what you seem to fail to understand, and either you really do believe the things you say (in which case... I'm sorry) or you're fishing, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprise a Pac 10 fan calling the current BCS a joke. Like I said before it's not perfect but it's certainly better than what was in place prior. :wacko:

 

Think most would agree one reason why the Big 10 and their tag along little Pac 10 sister conference finally decided to come aboard the BCS was due to the fact Michigan/Big10 fans felt cheated when the Wolverines got dropped to #2 after winning the 1997 Rose Bowl. Their fear was that if they didn't join that this could happen again.

 

In hindsite, you gotta wonder if that was the right move for those conferences if their only interest was winning football national championships.

 

How many potential more NC would the Pac 10 and Big 10 have if the BCS was not in place?

 

Let's see? For argument sake, we'll assume that Miami would have lost their bowl game anyway to say the SEC Champion Georgia Bulldogs and Ohio State would have won the Rose over Washington State to capture the 2002 title and USC would have taken care of business vs. Michigan to secure their 2004 championship.

 

1. 2003 - the media darlings USC would have certainly been awarded the NC

2. 2005 - USC would have been awarded a NC again by beating Penn State thus eliminating Texas

3. 2006 - Whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

4. 2007 - Again whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

 

 

First of all, Michigan didn't get screwed over in 1997. They were #1 in the AP poll, and Nebraska was #1 in the Coaches. That might've been a year where the BCS could've gotten things right. I can name several years in the 1990's where the Big Ten did have teams that, in a playoff setting, could've definitely fielded a worthy adversary, starting with the 1994 Penn State team that DID get screwed, out of at least a "Split Title". The 96' Buckeyes were certainly a force and probably won the TRUE National Title game that year over Arizona State who was undefeated going into that game. Obviously the 1997 Wolverines would have to be on anyones list as potential national title contenders in a playoff that year. The 1998 Buckeyes were one of the most talented teams ever, a team littered with NFL talent, slipped up once in East Lansing, and that was all it took to knock them out. In 1999 the Michigan Wolverines led by that Tom Brady guy, knocked off the unbeatable, unstoppable, mighty SEC champion Alabama in the Orange Bowl, certainly THEY would've been a tough out for anyone in a true playoff. All of these teams listead, but the 97' Wolverines, did not get a shot to win it all under the old system, and 2 of them didn't get a shot under the BCS, but all of them were some of the best teams in the country that year As for your examples... can't speculate as to what woulda happened under the old system, but can tell you that all of those teams would've been very worthy opponents in a playoff atmosphere, that I doubt any SEC Champion woulda been dying the play. And while we're on bold statements. There are only 2 places in the world that LSU woulda had a hope in he|| of knocking off the Trojans in 2003... Baton Rouge, or New Orleans. On ANY other field, it woulda been UGLY. Just be happy that what happened, did happen, and enjoy your title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't the Ravens another team that didn't win their own division? Not sure about the Rams, but I'm not one of those NBA like fans that like to see everyone make the playoffs. In fact I use to be a much bigger MLB fan before they started splitting divisions and added wildcard teams as well.

FWIW, despite the fact that it's a really fun tourney, from a standpoint of a good way to determine the champion, I think March Madness has too many teams. So, in other words, somewhere between 2 and 64 seems about right. Say, 8? However, don't confuse a playoff in which 8 of the 120 or so teams in D-1 with "everyone making the playoffs". That's still a far smaller percentage than any pro league.

 

Oh, and the wildcard in baseball actually made the regular season more interesting. As a kid I recall it being a rarity that it ever came down to the wire for who made the play-offs. Now it seems like an annual thing that, at least one race is undecided in the final weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also in your example rocker, in 2006, I highly doubt a 2 loss USC team would've jumped a 1 loss Florida team with a win over Ohio State. Actually Florida woulda probably been playing Michigan in the Sugar Bowl, and that Michigan team would've matched up better with Florida instead of the psychologically overmatched Ohio State squad. Of course, I think anyone would've made that game more exciting than Ohio State did by laying one of the biggest eggs I've ever seen, as a relatively heavy favorite. Too bad poor LSU woulda had to leave the friendly confines of the Super Dome that year. But hey, maybe they could've whooped on Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl or something, and then claim it as one of the biggest victories in school history even though 2 other BCS participants already dismantled them in the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is I am fired up ESPN Game Day is in Eugene - the rest of the country can check out how insane it is there. Just an unreal atmosphere that will be even more chaotic on Halloween night.

 

We know about USC, but Oregon is a top 10 program as well and it is going to be a helluva game.

 

PAC 10 baby - conference of champions

 

Ducks have some key injuries on D and I think USC prevails

 

USC 27

Oregon 21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocker - do you find it interesting that not one person here agrees with you? And that there are multiple people saying that your line of thinking is simply insane? Do you think it's possible that you're flat out wrong?

 

Well to his credit, we are just all stating our opinions. So it's tough to say he's wrong. Misguided yes. Flat out wrong? no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to his credit, we are just all stating our opinions. So it's tough to say he's wrong. Misguided yes. Flat out wrong? no.

No, we're not just stating opinions when discussing the NFL versus the NCAA. The NFL have very clear rules and whether you like the fact that the 8th best team can win it all or not, the rules are very clear and everyone plays by the same rulles. College football is based, in large part, on a bunch of opinions of sports writers and coaches that may or may not have actually watched the games throughout the year.

Rocker said himself that SEC fans, himself included, are happy with the system because of the opportunities afforded to the SEC champ. Again, opinion. NFL is decided on the field. NCAA, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad poor LSU woulda had to leave the friendly confines of the Super Dome that year. But hey, maybe they could've whooped on Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl or something, and then claim it as one of the biggest victories in school history even though 2 other BCS participants already dismantled them in the regular season.

Les Miles led LSU teams do seem to like dome games. :wacko:

 

2005 Peach Bowl LSU 40 Miami 3

2007 Sugar Bowl LSU 41 Notre Dame 14

2008 BCS Championship LSU 38 Ohio State 24

2008 Chick fil A Bowl LSU 38 Georgia Tech 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and the wildcard in baseball actually made the regular season more interesting. As a kid I recall it being a rarity that it ever came down to the wire for who made the play-offs. Now it seems like an annual thing that, at least one race is undecided in the final weekend.

So you admit you like the wildcard in baseball and I assume in football because it makes the season more FUN!

 

Will you also admit that the wildcard in both the MLB and the NFL has deminish the importance of winning a divisional crown?

 

Is there really any difference in winning a MLB divisional title vs a wildcard? It's fairly common to have a wildcard team in the World Series and just last year the NFL wildcard team won the SuperBowl.

 

Lets face it folks. The reason why everyone wants a college football playoff that includes more than a plus one game, isn't because we are disgusted with the two teams chosen to play in the BCS NC game, it's because we think it would be more FUN! :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face it folks. The reason why everyone wants a college football playoff that includes more than a plus one game, isn't because we are disgusted with the two teams chosen to play in the BCS NC game, it's because we think it would be more FUN! :wacko:

 

I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you admit you like the wildcard in baseball and I assume in football because it makes the season more FUN!

 

Will you also admit that the wildcard in both the MLB and the NFL has deminish the importance of winning a divisional crown?

 

Is there really any difference in winning a MLB divisional title vs a wildcard? It's fairly common to have a wildcard team in the World Series and just last year the NFL wildcard team won the SuperBowl.

 

Lets face it folks. The reason why everyone wants a college football playoff that includes more than a plus one game, isn't because we are disgusted with the two teams chosen to play in the BCS NC game, it's because we think it would be more FUN! :wacko:

 

It would be more FUN, but most people want to see a system b/c every year there is at least one team standing there on the outside looking in, claiming that they should be playing for the NC. Then after the game (when the Big 10 team gets drummed) the team on the outside says "we could have done better than that" or "we could have beat that team".

 

It isn't just about the fun, it is about earning the title on the field, and not on the votes by coaches or computers.

 

Think how much March would suck if they took the top 2 basketball teams according to the polls and tipped off, one game for the championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you admit you like the wildcard in baseball and I assume in football because it makes the season more FUN!

 

Will you also admit that the wildcard in both the MLB and the NFL has deminish the importance of winning a divisional crown?

 

Is there really any difference in winning a MLB divisional title vs a wildcard? It's fairly common to have a wildcard team in the World Series and just last year the NFL wildcard team won the SuperBowl.

 

Lets face it folks. The reason why everyone wants a college football playoff that includes more than a plus one game, isn't because we are disgusted with the two teams chosen to play in the BCS NC game, it's because we think it would be more FUN! :wacko:

Well, for starters, let's not fool ourselves, watching sports is fun. Or at least it should be. IT'S A FREAKING GAME!!!!

 

That said, you made some crack about the wildcard and baseball in a post where you were going on again about diminishing the regular season and causing a situation where some games won't count. I mentioned the last weekend of the season bit to point out that the wildcard actually makes more games count more often than it doesn't.

 

None the less, the best reason, I think for adding the wild card is that, once you divide a league up into divisions, you immediately undermine the fairness in which teams will be chosen for the play-offs. This is because of the likelihood that one division could have a disproportionate amount of the best teams in the league. If you divide the teams up and then only take the winners of each league, you run the risk of not allowing the strongest teams into the tourney. Of course, even that is better than dividing everyone up and then only taking the champions of two of the divisions, which is what the BCS does.

 

So, in addition to being more entertaining, adding the wildcard just happens to be a better and fairer way of determining the champion. Now, if baseball just had one huge division and everyone played everyone exactly as many times as each other, then you just took the teams with the 4 best records, I'd be safe to say you had the 4 best teams. But if you chop it up in 4 and take the winner of each of those, as they used to, it's pretty damned likely that at least one of the 4 best teams will be left out.

 

ETA: Mind you, I don't advocate ditching the divisions in baseball. Rather saying that if you're hell bent on having only 4 teams play for all the marbles, it would be a more fair way to determine who.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for starters, let's not fool ourselves, watching sports is fun. Or at least it should be. IT'S A FREAKING GAME!!!!

 

That said, you made some crack about the wildcard and baseball in a post where you were going on again about diminishing the regular season and causing a situation where some games won't count. I mentioned the last weekend of the season bit to point out that the wildcard actually makes more games count more often than it doesn't.

 

None the less, the best reason, I think for adding the wild card is that, once you divide a league up into divisions, you immediately undermine the fairness in which teams will be chosen for the play-offs. This is because of the likelihood that one division could have a disproportionate amount of the best teams in the league. If you divide the teams up and then only take the winners of each league, you run the risk of not allowing the strongest teams into the tourney. Of course, even that is better than dividing everyone up and then only taking the champions of two of the divisions, which is what the BCS does.

 

So, in addition to being more entertaining, adding the wildcard just happens to be a better and fairer way of determining the champion. Now, if baseball just had one huge division and everyone played everyone exactly as many times as each other, then you just took the teams with the 4 best records, I'd be safe to say you had the 4 best teams. But if you chop it up in 4 and take the winner of each of those, as they used to, it's pretty damned likely that at least one of the 4 best teams will be left out.

 

ETA: Mind you, I don't advocate ditching the divisions in baseball. Rather saying that if you're hell bent on having only 4 teams play for all the marbles, it would be a more fair way to determine who.

The main purpose I hear from most everyone of including additional teams in a playoff is to make sure everyone has a chance to win the Championship not who is most deserving to come in 2nd. So if a wildcard team happens to be the 2nd best team in the entire league, but happens to be in the same division with the Best team I see no reason why they should get a 2nd chance of beating a team they competed against and lost to throughout the course of an entire season. Unless of course you are willing to make the end of the season (playoffs) fun at the expense of the fun enjoyed during the entire season. If you are like me, I really don't give a rat's a$$ about whether or not the New Orleans Hornets beat the Boston Celtics during the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main purpose I hear from most everyone of including additional teams in a playoff is to make sure everyone has a chance to win the Championship not who is most deserving to come in 2nd. So if a wildcard team happens to be the 2nd best team in the entire league, but happens to be in the same division with the Best team I see no reason why they should get a 2nd chance of beating a team they competed against and lost to throughout the course of an entire season. Unless of course you are willing to make the end of the season (playoffs) fun at the expense of the fun enjoyed during the entire season. If you are like me, I really don't give a rat's a$$ about whether or not the New Orleans Hornets beat the Boston Celtics during the regular season.

What sort of idiot would ever think that the two teams best qualified to play for the championship might actually be in the same division/conference?

How do you know the SEC might not have the two best college football teams in the nation? :wacko:

:D

 

Assuming you're going to have a play-off, don't you want that play-off to include the best teams? So, if two of the best teams happen to be the Yankees and the Red Sox, why eliminate one of them in favor of someone else just because of geography?

 

And who knows, maybe the Sox beat the Yankees in their season series but compiled a worse record against everyone else and finished a game behind them in the standings. Are you going to say the Yankees are a better team? Because they won 101 instead of 100 games out of 162 but lost more times than they won against the sox?

 

Whatever. You ditch the points you're proven wrong on and move on to others. You reply to the posts you think you have an answer to and ignore the ones you don't. Make a freaking point. Just once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the same argument in 2006 when Ohio State and Michigan were #1 and #2, and there were some that argued that they should play again because they were the clear cut best teams from the same conference. Look the SEC is on a nice cute little run, but what goes up WILL come down. It may not happen this year, but it WILL happen. Only an arrogant SEC fan would suggest otherwise. Just go back 10 years, and tell me if you would've predicted that Florida State, and Nebraska, and even Michigan would be in the state that they were in today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the same argument in 2006 when Ohio State and Michigan were #1 and #2, and there were some that argued that they should play again because they were the clear cut best teams from the same conference. Look the SEC is on a nice cute little run, but what goes up WILL come down. It may not happen this year, but it WILL happen. Only an arrogant SEC fan would suggest otherwise. Just go back 10 years, and tell me if you would've predicted that Florida State, and Nebraska, and even Michigan would be in the state that they were in today.

Just in case you're replying to me, understand that the only situation where I think it would be cool for two teams from the same conference to play for the title was if both managed to make it through a proper playoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case you're replying to me, understand that the only situation where I think it would be cool for two teams from the same conference to play for the title was if both managed to make it through a proper playoff.

 

Absolutely. And if I had it my way, I would have a 12 team playoff, with no restrictions on the number of teams from a single conference. Take the 6 Conference Champions, 6 at large, and give the top 4 conference champions first round byes and play it out. But that's just my pie in the sky dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. And if I had it my way, I would have a 12 team playoff, with no restrictions on the number of teams from a single conference. Take the 6 Conference Champions, 6 at large, and give the top 4 conference champions first round byes and play it out. But that's just my pie in the sky dream.

 

 

how cool would that be, we would be looking at: (a few guesses at conference champs in bold)

 

SEC - FLA, Bama, LSU

Pac 10 - ORE , USC

ACC - GTech

Big 12 - Texas

Big 10 - Iowa, Penn State

Big East - Cincy

 

 

TCU, Boise State rounding out the field

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information