BCS NC Game - Pecking Order

[bushwacked]

Now the picture is a lot clearer.

[Living the Dream]

So much for that eye test with these Boise St Broncos. When they finally were challenged in the 4th qtr, they were not prepared to be hit in the mouth. They were never that good in the first place. we saw it when va Tech gift wrapped the game in week 1. Nevada wasnt as generous.

[Living the Dream]

Am I the only one that thought that looked good?

 

 

It was good, 34-31

[bushwacked]

It was good, 34-31

 

I see what you did there.

[bushwacked]

Am I the only one that thought that looked good?

 

Guess not, too many glasses of wine.

[Living the Dream]

Guess not, too many glasses of wine.

 

 

Are you chocolate wasted as well.

[theprofessor]

Boise, Oregon, or TCU would all have at least 2 loses if they played Bama on the road, and games against LSU, Arkansas, and S Carolina twice.

 

Oregon now has beaten a soon to be unranked Zona, and USC, who both now have 4 loses and stanford who also hasnt beaten anyone ranked now.

 

Boise beats one team, Va Tech who loses to a division 2 team the next week after giving the game to Boise, and Nevada probably wont be ranked in next weeks BCS.

 

TCU hasnt beat anyone of substance now after the season has played out either.

 

 

IMO, I believe the most deserving teams to be playing for the title is LSU/Auburn. Those are the 2 best teams in the country. Id love to see Oregon play Bama in Bama, and see how bad that loss is for the pac-10. And Bama is now a 3 loss team.

 

Further proof that this guy should be banned from posting in the CF forum.

[Rockerbraves]

I'm no college football expert but you show so much bias it's amazing. Instead of all this "most deserving" tripe, the record should be the only factor involved. An undefeated team should always be preferred over a one-loss team. Anything else looks like a swindle, something that college football is very familiar with.

I'm no professional football expert, but are you saying if a Canadian professional football team has a better record than a NFL team that you prefer to recognize them as World Champs over the NFL Champion?

[detlef]

The bolded part is important but it's opinion - "I believe". The cold hard fact is that 12-0 beats 11-1. Otherwise we may as well stop playing the games and just vote instead.

 

 

Oh wait........

 

 

12-0 does not always beat 11-1 nor have the same meaning. Perhaps more directly, 12-0 in the Big East is likely not as impressive a feat as going 11-1 in the SEC, the Big 12, the Big 10 or the PAC 10. Those of us who love college football don't get a playoff system--don't make us potentially watch a Big East vs Boise State Nat'l Championship game.

I don't believe the Ursa is implying that a 12-0 team will always beat an 11-1 team. Rather that they need to be given the benefit of the doubt if we're going to have this stupid system in place. I think everyone here but Rocker despises the random nature in which the NC is decided in D-1A but if winning every game you play is not enough when someone who loses once can be taken ahead of you...

 

I mean, I happen to believe the SEC is the strongest conference and also agree that it would be a much harder road to go unbeaten then other conferences, but there is actually little concrete evidence, at least this year to support that. Because every "impressive" victory they have is in-conference. LSU played UNC and WVU and that is to be commended, and WVU has now managed to work it's way back into the top 25. But neither counts, at least this year, as a defining win. Neither is Bama's win over PSU or Auburn's win over Clemson. So we simply having nothing that sets a true barometer as to exactly how impressive LSU or Auburn's wins over Bama are. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. We decide that Bama is the best tam in the country prior to week 1 and so, as soon as their league-mates start beating them, we assume they're beating a great team and thus, themselves, are great. So now, all of a sudden, every team in the SEC with a good record must be great because they're all playing close games against each other and, if some of them are great by virtue of having beaten a "great" Alabama team, they all must be great. But they could all be just OK for all we know. Now, if one of them had a win over Wisconsin or Stanford, or Okie St, or some team considered elite this season in their conference, then the whole argument would have the context it is currently lacking.

 

Hell, even the dominant run in the NC game of late only works to a degree, because we can't be sure that the best two teams in the country are playing each other. Or, for that matter, that the 2nd SEC team in the BCS hasn't been drawing some weak sauce team as well (which they often have, btw).

 

Maybe, actually none of those teams are as good as say, any of the top teams in the Big 12. I don't happen to think that's the case, but what can you actually point to that says so. So I, along with everyone else, am just guessing.

[detlef]

I'm no professional football expert, but are you saying if a Canadian professional football team has a better record than a NFL team that you prefer to recognize them as World Champs over the NFL Champion?

I doubt it, but since you bring it up. It is freaking lame to call the Super Bowl Champs "World Champs" since nobody plays any team not from the US ever.

 

However, let's say they decided to have one more game after the Grey Cup and SB to decide who is the best team in the world (it would still only be North America, but at least you'd be including every country who takes the sport remotely seriously). What it sounds like you're advocating is that we ignore the Grey Cup Champs and just have the winner of the SB and some other team in the NFL (perhaps the SB loser, perhaps some other team that we think is better) just play another game and call that game the World Championship because, after all, everyone knows the NFL is better than the CFL.

 

Hell, how many years are the two "best" teams in the NFL both in the same conference? Why do we let the team who wins the conference championship from the one we deem to be inferior play in the SB? Why don't we just let the two "best" teams from the "better" conference just have another go at each other?

 

And I should add, as stupid as it would be to decide the SB champ in the manner I've just said, it still makes way more sense than doing the same in college because we actually do have a reasonably good indication (based on the actual existence of a body of inter-conference games) of which conference is tougher than the other.

Edited November 27, 2010 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

Hell, how many years are the two "best" teams in the NFL both in the same conference? Why do we let the team who wins the conference championship from the one we deem to be inferior play in the SB? Why don't we just let the two "best" teams from the "better" conference just have another go at each other?

This would likely be a fairer way to determine champion. Do you really think it's fair that the Super Bowl champs have to play a tougher schedule? What does that prove?

[detlef]

This would likely be a fairer way to determine champion. Do you really think it's fair that the Super Bowl champs have to play a tougher schedule? What does that prove?

It proves who the last man standing was. Which is the way championships have been determined everywhere besides Figure Skating, Diving, Equestrian, and D1-A football.

 

Just because Indy and NE play in the AFC Championship instead of the SB doesn't change anything. They each have to beat the other once in the SB tourney. It just doesn't happen to be in the SB itself. Now, if they wanted to somehow seed the thing in line with some sort of power ranking, so that these teams would meet in the SB rather than the semis, that would be another thing. But to have Indy and NE play each other, and then just play each other again, would neither be fair or interesting.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

The difference between 1 and 32 in the NFL is vastly smaller than the difference between 1 and 32 in College Football. VASTLY. Rocker, you love to look at the betting lines. What would be the betting line of the Jets at home vs the Panthers. And what would the line be for Oregon at home vs some 4 or 5 loss team ranked #32?

[Rockerbraves]

It proves who the last man standing was. Which is the way championships have been determined everywhere besides Figure Skating, Diving, Equestrian, and D1-A football.

 

Just because Indy and NE play in the AFC Championship instead of the SB doesn't change anything. They each have to beat the other once in the SB tourney. It just doesn't happen to be in the SB itself. Now, if they wanted to somehow seed the thing in line with some sort of power ranking, so that these teams would meet in the SB rather than the semis, that would be another thing. But to have Indy and NE play each other, and then just play each other again, would neither be fair or interesting.

Not a huge professional sport fan but are you saying that the MLB punishes there World series champion by giving them a tougher schedule?

[detlef]

Am I the only one that thought that looked good?

It would seem you're not.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm no professional football expert, but are you saying if a Canadian professional football team has a better record than a NFL team that you prefer to recognize them as World Champs over the NFL Champion?

I don't recognize any team that doesn't play teams from other countries as world champions. That includes baseball, basketball and hockey where a few teams from Canada also play but especially football.

 

I don't believe the Ursa is implying that a 12-0 team will always beat an 11-1 team. Rather that they need to be given the benefit of the doubt if we're going to have this stupid system in place. I think everyone here but Rocker despises the random nature in which the NC is decided in D-1A but if winning every game you play is not enough when someone who loses once can be taken ahead of you...

Exactly. If 12-0 can't get you in, what's the point? It's hardly the fault of the team going 12-0, is it?

[Rockerbraves]

Exactly. If 12-0 can't get you in, what's the point? It's hardly the fault of the team going 12-0, is it?

IOf course the 12-0 teams have to take some of the fault for their SOS.

[untateve]

Exactly. If 12-0 can't get you in, what's the point? It's hardly the fault of the team going 12-0, is it?

 

I disagree. Unlike the NFL, a team is responsible for scheduling many of its games. Additionally, a 12-0 record in the Big East does not equal an 11-1 record in, for example, the SEC. If a team is in a weaker conference (even if it's only perceived to be weaker), that team should schedule a more difficult out-of-conference schedule.

 

Does this schedule--

 

TCU

 

09/04/10 vs. Oregon State TV Arlington, Texas W, 30-21

09/11/10 vs. Tennessee Tech Fort Worth, Texas W, 62-7

09/18/10 vs. Baylor TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 45-10

09/24/10 at SMU TV Dallas, Texas W, 41-24

10/02/10 at Colorado State TV Fort Collins, Colo. W, 27-0

10/09/10 vs. Wyoming TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 45-0

10/16/10 vs. BYU TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 31-3

10/23/10 vs. Air Force TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 38-7

10/30/10 at UNLV TV Las Vegas, Nev. W, 48-6

11/06/10 at Utah TV Salt Lake City, Utah W, 47-7

11/13/10 vs. San Diego State TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 40-35

11/27/10 at New Mexico TV Albuquerque, N.M. 3:00 p.m. CT

 

Equal this schedule?

 

Auburn

 

09/04/10 vs. Arkansas State TV Auburn, Ala. W, 52-26

09/09/10 at Mississippi State * TV Starkville, Miss. W, 17-14

09/18/10 vs. Clemson TV Auburn, Ala. W, 27-24 (OT)

09/25/10 vs. South Carolina * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 35-27

10/02/10 vs. Louisiana-Monroe TV Auburn, Ala. W, 52-3

10/09/10 at Kentucky * TV Lexington, Ky. W, 37-34

10/16/10 vs. Arkansas * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 65-43

10/23/10 vs. LSU * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 24-17

10/30/10 at Mississippi * TV Oxford, Miss. W, 51-31

11/06/10 vs. Chattanooga (HC) TV Auburn, Ala. W, 62-24

11/13/10 vs. Georgia * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 49-31

11/26/10 at Alabama * TV Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 28-27

SEC Championship

12/04/10 vs. South Carolina TV Atlanta, Ga. 3:00 p.m. CT

[Rockerbraves]

The difference between 1 and 32 in the NFL is vastly smaller than the difference between 1 and 32 in College Football. VASTLY. Rocker, you love to look at the betting lines. What would be the betting line of the Jets at home vs the Panthers. And what would the line be for Oregon at home vs some 4 or 5 loss team ranked #32?

Not sure about other conferences, but yesterday we had #11 ranked Alabama favored over Auburn & today we have #12 Arkansas favored over #5 LSU. Not sure how much Oregon would be favored over say Penn State, but I feel confident the SEC's Florida Gators would not be that HUGE of an underdog to Oregon.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Not sure about other conferences, but yesterday we had #11 ranked Alabama favored over Auburn & today we have #12 Arkansas favored over #5 LSU. Not sure how much Oregon would be favored over say Penn State, but I feel confident the SEC's Florida Gators would not be that HUGE of an underdog to Oregon.

 

I respect what Florida has done, but Oregon would run circles around this Gator team. Don't know what the line would be but I would venture a guess that it would be more than a touchdown at least.

 

The point is, comparing NFL schedules to College is ridiculous. And in the NFL all of the teams start out on the same playing field. It isn't handicapped like College Football. Schedule means nothing in the NFL to be honest. The teams are way to closely matched.

Edited November 27, 2010 by GWPFFL BrianW

[untateve]

I respect what Florida has done, but Oregon would run circles around this Gator team. Don't know what the line would be but I would venture a guess that it would be more than a touchdown at least.

 

 

:tears:

[GWPFFL BrianW]

And I wasn't going to post on this thread at all, but I have to say rocker, the original post was one of the most egotistical posts I've ever seen. The SEC has always had a really good team at the top. But certainly if the SEC has this reputation, then that next tier of teams would've certainly beaten the 2nd tier of Big Ten teams over the years... oh wait, it's been pretty equal. Only SEC team that deserves to play in a MNC, is an SEC Champion. The first and 2nd losers of the conference don't deserve chit.

[detlef]

I disagree. Unlike the NFL, a team is responsible for scheduling many of its games. Additionally, a 12-0 record in the Big East does not equal an 11-1 record in, for example, the SEC. If a team is in a weaker conference (even if it's only perceived to be weaker), that team should schedule a more difficult out-of-conference schedule.

 

Does this schedule--

 

TCU

 

09/04/10 vs. Oregon State TV Arlington, Texas W, 30-21

09/11/10 vs. Tennessee Tech Fort Worth, Texas W, 62-7

09/18/10 vs. Baylor TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 45-10

09/24/10 at SMU TV Dallas, Texas W, 41-24

10/02/10 at Colorado State TV Fort Collins, Colo. W, 27-0

10/09/10 vs. Wyoming TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 45-0

10/16/10 vs. BYU TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 31-3

10/23/10 vs. Air Force TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 38-7

10/30/10 at UNLV TV Las Vegas, Nev. W, 48-6

11/06/10 at Utah TV Salt Lake City, Utah W, 47-7

11/13/10 vs. San Diego State TV Fort Worth, Texas W, 40-35

11/27/10 at New Mexico TV Albuquerque, N.M. 3:00 p.m. CT

 

Equal this schedule?

 

Auburn

 

09/04/10 vs. Arkansas State TV Auburn, Ala. W, 52-26

09/09/10 at Mississippi State * TV Starkville, Miss. W, 17-14

09/18/10 vs. Clemson TV Auburn, Ala. W, 27-24 (OT)

09/25/10 vs. South Carolina * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 35-27

10/02/10 vs. Louisiana-Monroe TV Auburn, Ala. W, 52-3

10/09/10 at Kentucky * TV Lexington, Ky. W, 37-34

10/16/10 vs. Arkansas * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 65-43

10/23/10 vs. LSU * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 24-17

10/30/10 at Mississippi * TV Oxford, Miss. W, 51-31

11/06/10 vs. Chattanooga (HC) TV Auburn, Ala. W, 62-24

11/13/10 vs. Georgia * TV Auburn, Ala. W, 49-31

11/26/10 at Alabama * TV Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 28-27

SEC Championship

12/04/10 vs. South Carolina TV Atlanta, Ga. 3:00 p.m. CT

No, it doesn't. TCU's certainly looks easier. And that is precisely why nobody is arguing that a 12-0 TCU team should go in ahead of a 12-0 Auburn team. Again, you guys are complaining about something that is not going to happen. TCU and every other non AQ team is, in fact, very much penalized for the fact that they play an easier schedule than most BCS schools. They typically get ranked behind BCS schools with the same record.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

No, it doesn't. TCU's certainly looks easier. And that is precisely why nobody is arguing that a 12-0 TCU team should go in ahead of a 12-0 Auburn team. Again, you guys are complaining about something that is not going to happen. TCU and every other non AQ team is, in fact, very much penalized for the fact that they play an easier schedule than most BCS schools. They typically get ranked behind BCS schools with the same record.

 

No one is arguing that, but they are arguing undefeated TCU over 1 loss Big Ten Champion Wisconsin. I think that's a joke. I also think it's a joke to have them over 1 loss Oklahoma State if they win the Big 12. Same goes for 1 loss Pac 10 Champ Oregon (should Oregon State beat them). My point is, this year, with the exception being the ACC and Big East, any conference champion deserves to be there more than TCU. Just my opinion.

[detlef]

No one is arguing that, but they are arguing undefeated TCU over 1 loss Big Ten Champion Wisconsin. I think that's a joke. I also think it's a joke to have them over 1 loss Oklahoma State if they win the Big 12. Same goes for 1 loss Pac 10 Champ Oregon (should Oregon State beat them). My point is, this year, with the exception being the ACC and Big East, any conference champion deserves to be there more than TCU. Just my opinion.

If nobody is arguing the merits of Auburn v TCU, why were those the two schedules shown?