Ten Reasons Why OSU wins the BCS NC

[Rockerbraves]

There goes your 'creditamability'.

From a national perspective this is a must win game not only for the Bucks but the entire Big 10 as a whole.

 

Glabra you're a fan of a Big 10 school, right? If so then you should agree this year the media really enjoyed knocking the Big 10 based off of last year's Big 10 embarrassment of pushing for a Big 10 re-match in the BCS NC game then having Ohio State & Michigan both get humiliated in their respected BCS bowl games.

 

Even if OSU wins it all this year IMO that still won't completely vindicate the Big 10 for their arrogance last season, but at least it would be a start. Now on the other hand should the Bucks get handled in the big game again as the #1 team you can expect and rightfully so even more media bashing of the Big 10 next season.

 

My suggestion to you and to any big 10 fan, wear scarlet and gray and root like the devil for your fellow big ten team. It's that important.

[detlef]

There arn't enough weeks in the season to do what you are proposing with tougher OC. Heck Oklahoma didn't play Kansas, Georgia didn't play LSU, while a team like Iowa (purely as an example) didn't play either OSU or Michigan. There is just not enough time in a season to play all the good teams and who decides what teams are considered good. Washington, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Louisville are they considered no good from here on out? Are teams like Boston College, Illinois, S. Florida, Kansas considered good teams from here on out???

As long as everyone has at least one really bad team on their schedule and plenty have three (above and beyond teams from major conferences that just happen to be bad that year), that argument doesn't hold much water.

 

Hell, you pointed it out yourself when you posted the Mike and Mike deal about OSU. They played the system right. If the system was not about being one of two teams to manage to get through their schedule with one win, then perhaps teams wouldn't be so afraid to schedule better. Again, if you're arguing on behalf of not marginalizing the regular season, don't create a system where teams are afraid to play anyone. Pushing it to four teams certainly helps and, more often than not, is enough to make it so no team with a really good argument will be left out. However, "preserving the regular season" is a rather shallow argument.

[KevinL]

From a national perspective this is a must win game not only for the Bucks but the entire Big 10 as a whole.

 

Must win ... or what?

 

Let's say OSU loses. Next year they go undefeated (beating USC and running the table in the Big Ten). Are you saying that this loss will keep them out of next year's BCS Championship game?

[Rockerbraves]

However, "preserving the regular season" is a rather shallow argument.

Don't get me wrong, you won't find me protesting if the BCS started a playoff next season. I'm not totally against the playoffs although I would prefer no more than 8 teams so again not to cheapen the importance of the regular season.

 

Keep in mind, this whole discussion started when you said "this might be the worst the BCS has done thus far". My point is the BCS did the best they could with the hand they were dealt this season. You should know the only reason why we don't have some type of playoff in place like the plus one is the fact that the Big 10, Pac 10 and Rose Bowl people have threaten to walk out if it happened.

 

Until that changes don't blame the BCS. At least with the BCS we have a much better chance to determine a true NC than we ever did before.

[Rockerbraves]

Must win ... or what?

 

Let's say OSU loses. Next year they go undefeated (beating USC and running the table in the Big Ten). Are you saying that this loss will keep them out of next year's BCS Championship game?

I would think they would be out if let's say LSU goes undefeated, Oklahoma or a Pac 10 goes undefeated as well.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Rockerbraves

[theeohiostate]

Must win ... or what?

 

Let's say OSU loses. Next year they go undefeated (beating USC and running the table in the Big Ten). Are you saying that this loss will keep them out of next year's BCS Championship game?

 

 

 

This is a must win for LSU, those saying otherwise are fools. If a horrible Big 10 team, with a pathetic OCS comes into LSU's backyard where the reign as the mighty SEC Champs, that would be devastating for the kittens. Heck, if may even force that lousy coach to Michigan.............nah, that'll happen anyways with this Saban wannabee.

[detlef]

Don't get me wrong, you won't find me protesting if the BCS started a playoff next season. I'm not totally against the playoffs although I would prefer no more than 8 teams so again not to cheapen the importance of the regular season.

 

Keep in mind, this whole discussion started when you said "this might be the worst the BCS has done thus far". My point is the BCS did the best they could with the hand they were dealt this season. You should know the only reason why we don't have some type of playoff in place like the plus one is the fact that the Big 10, Pac 10 and Rose Bowl people have threaten to walk out if it happened.

 

Until that changes don't blame the BCS. At least with the BCS we have a much better chance to determine a true NC than we ever did before.

You do realize that even taking 12 teams would mean that only 10% of the teams make the play-offs. That's pretty severe compared to pretty much any other example I can think of. This whole cheapen the importance bit seems sort of odd. Are you implying that teams will take games off? I mean, the only way to make sure you're in the top 12 is to make sure you're in the top 8. The only way to make sure you're in the top 8 is to lose no more than 2 games. Which, if teams actually schedule decent teams, will be impressive as well as much more fun to watch.

 

Keep in mind, in terms of a credible manner in which to determine the best team, I actually think too many teams make the b-ball tourney. Not because some team that doesn't deserve to be in it might win the thing. Rather because it does actually cheapen the regular season. Everyone needs to win 6 games in a row, whether you went 30-3 or 22-10. Further, there's a ton of luck involved because there's so many places tough teams can stub their toe and create easy paths for others. Next thing you know, a #1 seed may get only one game against a really easy opponent, while a #3 could find themselves in a situation where all the high seeds fell before they had to play them. I mean, if you finished 6th in your conference (one of how many conferences?), do you really have a legitimate claim to be able to play for all the marbles? Of course, it's fun to watch, so I prefer it to the garbage D-1 football throws our way.

[Glabra]

My suggestion to you and to any big 10 fan, wear scarlet and gray and root like the devil for your fellow big ten team. It's that important.

My suggestion to you is to join the Emmitt Smith school of English diction.

[Rockerbraves]

You do realize that even taking 12 teams would mean that only 10% of the teams make the play-offs. That's pretty severe compared to pretty much any other example I can think of. This whole cheapen the importance bit seems sort of odd. Are you implying that teams will take games off? I mean, the only way to make sure you're in the top 12 is to make sure you're in the top 8. The only way to make sure you're in the top 8 is to lose no more than 2 games. Which, if teams actually schedule decent teams, will be impressive as well as much more fun to watch.

Not saying teams would take the day off as much as they would do their best without jeopardizing their shot in the playoffs.

 

Take last year for an example Michigan vs. Ohio State both those teams would have made the playoffs as would have USC even though they lost to UCLA. So if any of those teams top players were not 100% they might not play in that game. The intrigue of a "do or die" game would certainly take away from some of the season ending games like West Virginia and Pittsburgh. That's all I am saying.

[detlef]

Not saying teams would take the day off as much as they would do their best without jeopardizing their shot in the playoffs.

 

Take last year for an example Michigan vs. Ohio State both those teams would have made the playoffs as would have USC even though they lost to UCLA. So if any of those teams top players were not 100% they might not play in that game. The intrigue of a "do or die" game would certainly take away from some of the season ending games like West Virginia and Pittsburgh. That's all I am saying.

Fine points indeed. Of course, I really can't imagine what circumstances OSU or Michigan would mail that game in. How many times have you heard the bit about being happier going 1-10 if the one was against OSU, than 10-1 if the one was against OSU? Ditto with many of the other big games. Bragging rights mean everything and always will.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Not saying teams would take the day off as much as they would do their best without jeopardizing their shot in the playoffs.

 

Take last year for an example Michigan vs. Ohio State both those teams would have made the playoffs as would have USC even though they lost to UCLA. So if any of those teams top players were not 100% they might not play in that game. The intrigue of a "do or die" game would certainly take away from some of the season ending games like West Virginia and Pittsburgh. That's all I am saying.

 

Which is why I want 12 teams, and give 4 teams byes and require them to win their conference to get them. Gives teams a chance to strive. Look at the percentage of teams that do get in vs those that don't get in. The question is... why even have most of those teams in Division 1? You can say Hawaii isn't one of the 8 best teams, but why are they division 1 if they don't get a shot? With teams scheduling up to 10-12 years in advance, how will Hawaii ever get a chance? The whole concept of a regular season, is to build a resume for the post season, nothing more nothing less. If you aren't playing your best football towards the end of the year, then you really aren't worth a sh|t anyway. Imagine if the NFL only took 10 % of the total teams to postseason. You'd have the Colts battling the Cowboys for the right to face the Patriots. You reward regular season excellence by giving those teams a better than average shot at winning. That's how playoffs work. Right now You have 121 Division 1 teams. Only 53 of those teams have a shot at an automatic bid for winning their conference. Most years, only a select few have a prayer of making it to the big game. This year was obviously different than most. But 2002 to 2006, the Preseason #1 went wire to wire as #1 (cept for Oklahoma in 2003 but they were still #1 in the BCS despite losing their last game) . So there, in most years, humans arbitrarily decide 50 % of the National Championship game in August. In 2004, and 2005, they arbitrarily picked 100 % of the title game. Now no one here is saying that those teams weren't deserving, and in both of those years, those 2 teams could very well have met in the title game in a playoff situation, but is that fair? The answer is no. It certainly isn't. All of these teams are in the same division. And if you aren't going to give everyone an equal shot, then take the teams that don't get an equal shot out of the division. And I don't care if the USC's or Oklahoma's of the world run the table, and then slip up vs Utah or Boise State in the playoffs. Too bad. If you lose, then you weren't that great anyway. And at the end of the day, those teams don't care either, because they lined their pockets with a lot of dough.

[Cameltosis]

Fine points indeed. Of course, I really can't imagine what circumstances OSU or Michigan would mail that game in. How many times have you heard the bit about being happier going 1-10 if the one was against OSU, than 10-1 if the one was against OSU? Ditto with many of the other big games. Bragging rights mean everything and always will.

 

As much as I loath that team up north I would rather go 10-1 and loose to them. Of course, thats easy to say when you are on a run like we are right now. If you would have asked in the Cooper years it may have been different.

[detlef]

As much as I loath that team up north I would rather go 10-1 and loose to them. Of course, thats easy to say when you are on a run like we are right now. If you would have asked in the Cooper years it may have been different.

FWIW, that's how I would feel about it as well. I've just read or heard that so many times that I assume there are plenty that feel that way.

 

My point simply is that neither OSU or Michigan is going to pull their starters at halftime of that game unless the game is out of reach regardless of how little the game would mean to the play-off. Of course, your 12 team system example sure handles even the chance of that happening because there's a really good chance that winning that game could mean a 1st round bye to the right team. Something that would be well worth playing that baby for 60 minutes.

[Rockerbraves]

Brian, your NFL playoff actually looked pretty good to me.

 

Don't misunderstand I would very much love to see the Saints knock the Cowboys out of the playoffs as a wildcard , but if the Saints lost the next week and didn't make it to the Super Bowl, I would probably feel cheated if the Tampa Bay Bucs ended up playing the Patriots in the Super Bowl.

[Cameltosis]

FWIW, that's how I would feel about it as well. I've just read or heard that so many times that I assume there are plenty that feel that way.

 

I have read it a million times as well. Like I said I might have felt different in the 90's, honeslty I dont remember. I have tried to block that part of my memory out, and the rest has been taken care of by booze blackout. I miss college.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

cant imagine any team packing it in vs their rival. That's what is great about college football, because of the bitter rivalries, you won't see things like that. Duke and North Carolina certainly don't pack it in, in basketball, even when a tournament bid is inevitable.

Edited December 12, 2007 by GWPFFL BrianW

[detlef]

cant imagine any team packing it in vs their rival. That's what is great about college football, because of the bitter rivalries, you won't see things like that. Duke and North Carolina certainly don't pack it in, in basketball, even when a tournament bid is inevitable.

Well there's always that bit of irrefutable evidence, isn't there.

[Rockerbraves]

cant imagine any team packing it in vs their rival. That's what is great about college football,

Exactly.

 

Two years ago I recall Tyrus Thomas sitting out the SEC Tournament because he wasn't a 100%. Skip Bertman LSU AD (known for winning NCAA Baseball Championships) asked Coach Brady before making the decision to sit Thomas for the SEC tourney if he was taking his LSU squad to the NCAA's to win it or just to compete. Coach Brady got his point and sat Thomas and LSU made it to the final four.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Rockerbraves

[BS Miscreant]

A few comments on several of the thoughts in this thread:

 

1. LSU should/could very well feel just as much pressure as OSU as there are many of us who feel they are no more deserving of being there than teams like OU, GA or USC.

 

2. LSU did jump over somebody who didn't lose...three somebodies. VaTech, GA and Kansas

 

3. I don't get the +1 game this year. Why does everyone keep saying that? It might work some years but does it really get the right teams this year?

OSU then LSU? OU? GA? VT? KU? MO? USC? This wouldn't fix anything this year.

 

4. Teams would not take anything less seriously late in the season if there were a playoff because they may lose and in doing so forfeit homefield or have to play tougher opponents throughout. Very seldom does a highly ranked team have more than a one game lead over the teams behind them in the rankings.

[BS Miscreant]

Also,

 

5. College football and college basketball are worlds apart. Getting into a 64 team tournament and getting into an 8 team playoff are not even comparable. Sure LSU's b-ball team sat Thomas during the SEC tourney and they made it to the Final Four later but if LSU's football team sits key guys and loses this year's SEC CG then they're in all likelyhood out of an 8 team playoff.

[Rockerbraves]

Also,

 

5. College football and college basketball are worlds apart. Getting into a 64 team tournament and getting into an 8 team playoff are not even comparable. Sure LSU's b-ball team sat Thomas during the SEC tourney and they made it to the Final Four later but if LSU's football team sits key guys and loses this year's SEC CG then they're in all likelyhood out of an 8 team playoff.

Only brought up basketball because someone else did. I know you could find examples like this in college baseball as well. And we know the NFL sits players.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Basketball analogy was brought up because people say that the regular season would lose meaning or importance with a playoff. It doesn't in college basketball, why would it here. If anything it makes it more meaningful, because you would have MORE TEAMS with legitmate shots. The +1 doesn't fix a thing. You're still left with the REAL problem, which is the uneven playing field to start the year. PEople want to focus on the crapola at the end of each season, but totally forget the beginning of the season, and even the middle of the season. When you look at seasons as a whole, you realize that there is a far greater problem than just what happens at the end of a given year.

[BS Miscreant]

Only brought up basketball because someone else did. I know you could find examples like this in college baseball as well. And we know the NFL sits players.

College baseball they play 30-40 games. Losing one while you rest starters doesn't do the same kind of damage that losing one of your 12 games would. In the NFL, sitting players only happens if you have an overwhelmingly good regular season or you're locked into a particular playoff seeding. Hell, even then, the Cowboys have only one loss and they still have to play things out because there's another team one game back. Also, there are twelve teams in the NFL playoffs and division winners get in regardless of record. If the Saints had lost Monday night the Bucs would've clinched their division thus a playoff spot with an 8-5 record. Again, completely different world than college football.

[Rockerbraves]

A few comments on several of the thoughts in this thread:

 

1. LSU should/could very well feel just as much pressure as OSU as there are many of us who feel they are no more deserving of being there than teams like OU, GA or USC.

 

2. LSU did jump over somebody who didn't lose...three somebodies. VaTech, GA and Kansas

 

3. I don't get the +1 game this year. Why does everyone keep saying that? It might work some years but does it really get the right teams this year?

OSU then LSU? OU? GA? VT? KU? MO? USC? This wouldn't fix anything this year.

 

4. Teams would not take anything less seriously late in the season if there were a playoff because they may lose and in doing so forfeit homefield or have to play tougher opponents throughout. Very seldom does a highly ranked team have more than a one game lead over the teams behind them in the rankings.

Again understand I'm not against a playoff, but not one to include more than 8.

 

For #1 & 2 Please refer to the thread about what the experts are saying.

It's nice to hear your opinion which is great but please don't say there are many of us meaning the majority or worse yet you mean the people on this board. Sorry no offense, but I think I'll take the so called experts opinions more so than the a couple of people on a forum.

 

3.) An 8 team playoff might work perfectly this year, but not needed most years. What teams would you have had in there last season. Notre Dame? Wake Forest? Don't see the need.

 

4.) Re-read what happened at LSU basketball. You are only fooling yourself first if you think top teams at the end of season would drop out of the playoffs if they lost a late game aka USC and Michigan in 2006 / LSU, OSU & Missouri in 2007. Secondly, I find it difficut to believe that Pete Carroll would play his best players at less than 100% late in the season if he knew he was already in the playoffs just to give himself a better chance of earning a higher seed. Again re-read what happen at LSU basketball. Most top teams think they can beat any team any place, so I don't think they would risk the big picture just for a slightly better seed.

[darin3]

Are you surprised that I hardly watch NFL football unless I have a bet on the game?

 

Sorry but the NFL isn't anywhere close to College football IMO.

Is that why you come to a website geared to NFL (fantasy) FOOTBALL to jaw (poorly) about COLLEGE football? Uh, shoo.