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 This theme may be out of date.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

Houston beat Okie St. in Stillwater, they're both 6-1, yet they're ranked 4 spots behind them.

 

Ohio St. have played, I suppose, one good team and they have 2 losses yet they're ranked #17. Their signature win is Wisconsin...or is it Navy.

 

Cal have played two teams of any quality at all and they lost both by a combined 72-6 yet somehow they are still in the top 25.

 

Oregon are ranked #10 after being completely manhandled by Boise St earlier in the year yet that "quality win" apparently is not enough to keep the Broncos ahead of USC in the standings in spite of the fact that the Trojans have not played anyone of the "quality" of the Ducks. Can't wait to see what happens this Saturday.

 

USC jumps Cincy after beating the Beavers in SoCal when Cincy has already gone into Corvalis and taken care of business.

 

TCU gets mad love for beating a BYU team that the 3-4 Seminoles completely destroyed in Provo.

 

I'm sure I could go on but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am by no means a fan of the BCS system or the ranking system either, but here's some Devil's Advocate viewpoints. Not saying any are correct in any sense of the word, but since we're talking about a skewed system in general, they could be factors.

 

Houston beat Okie St. in Stillwater, they're both 6-1, yet they're ranked 4 spots behind them. OKSt's 6 wins are more impressive than Houston's other 5? :wacko:

 

Ohio St. have played, I suppose, one good team and they have 2 losses yet they're ranked #17. Their signature win is Wisconsin...or is it Navy. Name value? Coaches ranking them just because they've been good for so long? The need to have one of the big BCS conference's "best" ranked?

 

Cal have played two teams of any quality at all and they lost both by a combined 72-6 yet somehow they are still in the top 25. Fluke losses? Or again, the need to have one of the bigger BCS conference's darlings ranked?

 

Oregon are ranked #10 after being completely manhandled by Boise St earlier in the year yet that "quality win" apparently is not enough to keep the Broncos ahead of USC in the standings in spite of the fact that the Trojans have not played anyone of the "quality" of the Ducks. Can't wait to see what happens this Saturday. First off, it's USC. And maybe with Oregon, late wins are much, much more important than early losses? But you're right, some shake-up will have to occur after Saturday's game.

 

USC jumps Cincy after beating the Beavers in SoCal when Cincy has already gone into Corvalis and taken care of business. Like with OKSt,. perhaps the pollers/computers/aliens think that USC's other wins are better than Cincy's.

 

TCU gets mad love for beating a BYU team that the 3-4 Seminoles completely destroyed in Provo. But the Seminoles are usually soooo good, so they were supposed to beat BYU, even if it was in Provo. :D

 

I'm sure I could go on but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCS system isn't perfect, but it's certainly better than what college football use to have. :wacko:

 

The complaints I hear about the BCS rankings are similar to the ones I hear from fans of the lower classifications teams in high school when their team beats one of the better highest classification teams. They are always disappointed with the overall State rankings. For some reason they truly believe because they beat one good higher classification team that means they could do the same week in and week out. :D

 

Say what you want but the Cincy, TCU and Boise teams are 3A or 4A teams competing against 5A.

 

BCS STANDINGS

 

Oct. 25, 2009

 

1. Florida - 5A

 

2. Alabama - 5A

 

3. Texas -5A

 

4. Iowa - 5A

 

5. Southern Cal - 5A

 

6. TCU - 4A

 

7. Boise St. - 3A

 

8. Cincinnati - 4A

 

9. LSU -5A

 

10. Oregon- 5A

 

11. Georgia Tech - 5A

 

12. Penn St. - 5A

 

13. Virginia Tech -5A

 

14. Oklahoma St. - 5A

 

15. Pittsburgh - 4A

 

16. Utah - 4A

 

17. Ohio St. - 5A

 

18. Houston - 3A

 

19. Miami - 5A

 

20. Arizona - 5A

 

21. West Virginia - 4A

 

22. South Carolina -5A

 

23. Notre Dame -5A

 

24. California - 5A

 

25. Mississippi - 5A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocker, I completely agree with you about the non-BCS teams and the "1 big win" argument. However, no matter what level you play at, going undefeated is an EXTREMELY hard thing to do. Getting up for every game week in and week out for 11 or 12 weeks straight is darn near impossible, that's why it seems like every team that has won the national championship has at least 1 loss lately. The problem I have with the BCS is that in my mind, regardless of what conference you play in, if you are undefeated, you should be ranked ahead of anyone with 1 loss. An undefeated season deserves a shot to see if you are as good as your record shows. I have no problem with 1 loss and you're out. If you play in a lesser division it should be harder for you to get there. Last year, Utah deserved the shot, and proved it by beating Alabama. I am a die hard Buckeyes fan, but I'll be the first to say Boise St. at least deserved a chance in 06. Again they proved it by beating Oklahoma.

 

It's not even just the non-BCS conferences, Auburn went undefeated in 04, won their bowl, and play in the SEC. What more do they have to do?

 

The BCS is a great formula for coming up with the 6 or 8 teams who are PROBABLY the best in the country. Perfect for seeding a playoff system. Any system that lets the Buckeyes back into the title game like what happened in 07 just because they lost early and better teams lost late, or a system that holds undefeated teams because a 1 loss BCS team is "better" is hopelessly flawed. And this is coming from someone who bleeds Scarlet and Grey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BCS is a great formula for coming up with the 6 or 8 teams who are PROBABLY the best in the country. Perfect for seeding a playoff system. Any system that lets the Buckeyes back into the title game like what happened in 07 just because they lost early and better teams lost late, or a system that holds undefeated teams because a 1 loss BCS team is "better" is hopelessly flawed. And this is coming from someone who bleeds Scarlet and Grey...

Playoff does this exact same thing.

 

Remember also in 2007 the NFL Patriots (16-0) were undefeated in the regular season including a season ending win over the 10-6 NY Giants? If you recall that same Giant team beat them just a few weeks later to become the NFL version of the BCS NC. Is that any more fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playoff does this exact same thing.

 

Remember also in 2007 the NFL Patriots (16-0) were undefeated in the regular season including a season ending win over the 10-6 NY Giants? If you recall that same Giant team beat them just a few weeks later to become the NFL version of the BCS NC. Is that any more fair?

 

I would say that is not an apples to apples comparison. Yes the Patriots were undefeated, but the Giants were included in the playoffs because they were determined to be 1 of the best 12 teams in the NFL. They had to beat great competition, including those undefeated patriots to get to and win the superbowl. I don't think anyone is naive enough to say that a playoff will ALWAYS give you the best team. However, a playoff WILL always guarantee that the top group of teams from that given year were given the chance to play each other on the field and one will emerge victorious. The BCS doesn't even give an undefeated team a chance to prove themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playoff does this exact same thing.

 

Remember also in 2007 the NFL Patriots (16-0) were undefeated in the regular season including a season ending win over the 10-6 NY Giants? If you recall that same Giant team beat them just a few weeks later to become the NFL version of the BCS NC. Is that any more fair?

 

no it is not the exact same thing.

 

rocker, you always try and use this chit as an example - please stop. it is flawed logic and completely wrong. The NYG beating the Pats has nothing in common with a team like OSU making the National championship game under the BCS rankings - ZERO.

 

the NYG BEAT NE on the field, and a playoff is the only way to get us an undisputed champion.

 

this year especially, I think you can go as far down as 16 - and a 16 team playoff would be about ideal.

 

would anyone want a part of GTech right now??

Edited by wildcat2334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it is not the exact same thing.

 

rocker, you always try and use this chit as an example - please stop. it is flawed logic and completely wrong. The NYG beating the Pats has nothing in common with a team like OSU making the National championship game under the BCS rankings - ZERO.

 

the NYG BEAT NE on the field, and a playoff is the only way to get us an undisputed champion.

this year especially, I think you can go as far down as 16 - and a 16 team playoff would be about ideal.

 

would anyone want a part of GTech right now??

So you think the NY Giants were better than the New England Patriots that season or just the undisputed champions?

 

Because the BCS NC team is also the undisputed champions of college football considering the team that won did so by the rules agreed to prior to the competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the NY Giants were better than the New England Patriots that season or just the undisputed champions?

 

yes to both

 

Because the BCS NC team is also the undisputed champions of college football considering the team that won did so by the rules agreed to prior to the competition.

 

negative - they aren't undisputed bc it the champion is not settled on the field. Too many years where deserving teams never even get the chance to compete for the national championship under the BCS system in place.

 

I do agree it is better than the old system BUT the NCAA can fix this and they know it

and as parity is becoming more and more evident every year, the BCS is more of a failure every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say IF Texas were to lose and a LSU team comes back and beats Florida in the SEC championship you would feel more comfortable crowning a college football national champion between two undefeated teams like Boise vs TCU?

 

Yes. Otherwise why are the non-BCS schools even in the same division as the BCS schools? If they never deserve a shot, regardless of who they beat or going undefeated, why even include them in the BCS formulas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Otherwise why are the non-BCS schools even in the same division as the BCS schools? If they never deserve a shot, regardless of who they beat or going undefeated, why even include them in the BCS formulas?

I don't think any of them really think they have a shot at the BCS NC unless alot of things fall into place, but they are fighting to see if one of those schools might get a chance for a big payday by earning a berth into a BCS Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of them really think they have a shot at the BCS NC unless alot of things fall into place, but they are fighting to see if one of those schools might get a chance for a big payday by earning a berth into a BCS Bowl.

 

And here you have nailed the fundamental flaw with the entire BCS system. They want nothing to do with proving who the best team is. They know college football fans are the most rabid of all sports fans. They know we will continue to buy up their inferior product because we have no other choice. The BCS conferences just want the money. And the Big 10 and the PAC 10 are the first two conferences fighting on the front lines to keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Thing is with your precious BCS, we can't afford to waste the single opportunity we have to match two teams for all the marbles on two teams from the same conference because there is simply not enough data to determine how the conferences stack up. That is precisely why the OSU/UM re-match a few years back made no sense at all.

 

That's what would be so good about a play-off. If, it just so happens that the two best teams are in the SEC, then they may get a chance to play for all of it assuming the seedings work out that way (and it's statistically more likely that they do work out that way than not). So great.

 

The simple fact is, we already have a playoff in place, it's just one that includes too few teams. And, not unlike the possibility that the "wrong" team wins an 8-team playoff, the "wrong" team could win a two team playoff. The advantage, of course, is obvious. That is, any team with a reasonable argument for why they deserve to be in the discussion of who should win it all has a chance to prove it.

 

You love to point out the NY Giants and Pats, showing that the NFL's play-off system may not have delivered us with the best team as Champion. Well, all the BCS would have done is assure that Pats would be playing in the NC game which is no different than how it worked out in the NFL. However, like the NFL, they'd still have to win the damned thing, and they didn't. So, you need to actually make a relevant comparison and quit bringing this baseless argument up.

 

As for it being better than before. Perhaps it is, but only marginally so and, specifically only in certain years. One obvious example of this is USC v UT. It's the fact that match ups like that could never happen than made us clamor for change. But the change we didn't want was just plucking two teams out of a sea of teams that all had entirely valid claim to a shot and pretending that those were the two best teams in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what would be so good about a play-off. If, it just so happens that the two best teams are in the SEC, then they may get a chance to play for all of it assuming the seedings work out that way (and it's statistically more likely that they do work out that way than not). So great.

Even the NFL playoffs you're not assured the two best teams make it to the Super Bowl. Many of year either the NFC or the AFC may have the best two teams. That's why many feel the SEC Championship is the closest thing the NCAA has to a real playoff game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the NFL playoffs you're not assured the two best teams make it to the Super Bowl. Many of year either the NFC or the AFC may have the best two teams. That's why many feel the SEC Championship is the closest thing the NCAA has to a real playoff game.

When you say "many", do you mean myopic fools like yourself. Perhaps this year's SEC Championship could be that, which is ironic because that has less to do with the SEC looking good and everything to do with the fact that nobody else looks any better. However, most years you have one team with a legit claim to play in the NC game vs a possible spoiler.

 

I'm not saying that the play-off would assure us of having the two best teams in the final. I said it might work out that way. However, at least a play-off goes a hell of a lot further to assure us that the two best teams have a shot at winning it all. Sure, they might play in the semis, but at least they played.

 

Sure, bust out your 5As and 4As all you want. But we simply don't know whether or not TCU or Boise St are the best team in the country. And that's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/b]

When you say "many", do you mean myopic fools like yourself. Perhaps this year's SEC Championship could be that, which is ironic because that has less to do with the SEC looking good and everything to do with the fact that nobody else looks any better. However, most years you have one team with a legit claim to play in the NC game vs a possible spoiler.

 

I'm not saying that the play-off would assure us of having the two best teams in the final. I said it might work out that way. However, at least a play-off goes a hell of a lot further to assure us that the two best teams have a shot at winning it all. Sure, they might play in the semis, but at least they played.

 

Sure, bust out your 5As and 4As all you want. But we simply don't know whether or not TCU or Boise St are the best team in the country. And that's the point.

Wow! Myopic fools. I'm impressed enough to where I had to look it up?

 

Nearsightedness or shortsightedness??? You got to be fricken kidding me? SEC has won 3 consecutive BCS NC convincingly and 4 out of the last 6. Any NC game excluding the SEC champion this season would have to be considered a joke. Much like a Super Bowl that excluded the AFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So rocker... Florida and Oklahoma WERE the 2 best teams? LSU and Ohio State in 07? Florida and Ohio State in 06? You can say FOR SURE that you saw the best 2 teams on the field? Because that is highly debatable. You're gonna try to tell me that there is no possible way that USC in any one of those 3 years, couldn't have wiped the floor with either of the teams in the "national title". How bout Texas last year? We know they beat one of them. Personally that 06 Gators team woulda had more trouble with USC or Michigan than Ohio State (who has a problem with the SEC in general, mentally I mean). Stick to the flimsy argument that the BCS is better than what we had (though I would argue it isn't). Every year we can have a serious debate at the end of the year as to who shoulda been playing in the big game, or who shoulda won. There was no debate when New England played New York. And there isn't a debate as to who the true World Champions were that year. There is a debate in college football. And some people, would rather leave it up to debate. That's fine. I know many traditionalists that had no problem with split national champions.

 

And the only reason why the SEC CG is set up to be a playoff game, is because the system set it up that way, before the season. Florida and Alabama were both ranked really high, to there credit, haven't lost, and therefore IF they slip up, they wont have to climb very high up. Again, you see this as a GREAT thing, I see it as unfair.

 

And for the arrogant SEC fans like Rocker, remember, what goes up will always come down, and the SEC will have there day and get punched in the mouth. Have no idea if that is this year or not, but it will happen. If you told me 10 years ago, that Florida State would be struggling to become bowl eligable in 2009, I woulda laughed in your face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the BCS NC team is also the undisputed champions of college football considering the team that won did so by the rules agreed to prior to the competition.

One major problem with this argument... The rules of the NFL are stated very clearly and no one makes the playoffs or the championship game because of a vote by biased sports writers or coaches. Sure, college football has agreed upon rules for who gets to play for all the marbles but it's far from black and white. They may as well say "Hey Huddle, you guys watch a few games this year, we don't really care if you all watch the same ones, and catch some highlights and stats on Sunday then at the end of the season just pick two teams that you think are the best and we'll throw them into a bowl game against each other and call the winner champion. Oh yeah, almost forgot, you should vote preseason on who you think will be there at the end. Please don't let your early predicitions effect your final decision."

 

SEC has won 3 consecutive BCS NC convincingly and 4 out of the last 6. Any NC game excluding the SEC champion this season would have to be considered a joke. Much like a Super Bowl that excluded the AFC.

That's just the point. The NFL never excludes anyone for anything other than on field performance and standing within their conference. It doesn't matter whether the AFC or NFC are stronger. Both are represented in the playoffs and everyone gets their shot. You are eliminating a half dozen conferences from the equation, regardless of how good they may actually be, by annointing the SEC automatically worthy of a title shot. Your bias for the SEC, as good as it is, and your 5A, 4A, 3A rating system is based purely on past performance and more importantly tradition. Unless TCU, Cincy, etc. actually get to play one of the so-called big boys we'll never really know and that's the shame of this whole mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One major problem with this argument... The rules of the NFL are stated very clearly and no one makes the playoffs or the championship game because of a vote by biased sports writers or coaches. Sure, college football has agreed upon rules for who gets to play for all the marbles but it's far from black and white. They may as well say "Hey Huddle, you guys watch a few games this year, we don't really care if you all watch the same ones, and catch some highlights and stats on Sunday then at the end of the season just pick two teams that you think are the best and we'll throw them into a bowl game against each other and call the winner champion. Oh yeah, almost forgot, you should vote preseason on who you think will be there at the end. Please don't let your early predicitions effect your final decision."

 

 

That's just the point. The NFL never excludes anyone for anything other than on field performance and standing within their conference. It doesn't matter whether the AFC or NFC are stronger. Both are represented in the playoffs and everyone gets their shot. You are eliminating a half dozen conferences from the equation, regardless of how good they may actually be, by annointing the SEC automatically worthy of a title shot. Your bias for the SEC, as good as it is, and your 5A, 4A, 3A rating system is based purely on past performance and more importantly tradition. Unless TCU, Cincy, etc. actually get to play one of the so-called big boys we'll never really know and that's the shame of this whole mess.

 

 

Well said all the way around. One thing I will say, the ONE thing the BCS did right, was add a 5th game. That made it virtually impossible for a mid-major to NOT get into a big money BCS game (which ultimately was all the mid-majors were whining about to begin with, was the lack of money) . I LOVED seeing one of those unbeatable SEC teams get embarassed by a mid-major in the SEC's backyard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Myopic fools. I'm impressed enough to where I had to look it up?

 

Nearsightedness or shortsightedness??? You got to be fricken kidding me? SEC has won 3 consecutive BCS NC convincingly and 4 out of the last 6. Any NC game excluding the SEC champion this season would have to be considered a joke. Much like a Super Bowl that excluded the AFC.

You assertion, however that the SEC Championship is the defacto Natl Championship (ala the NFC or AFC Championship when one or the other conference is much deeper) implies that, not only does it contain the best team in the country but the two best teams. And that is where your argument crumbles.

 

Are you implying that LSU v Tennessee in '07 or FL vs Ark in '06 were the defacto Championship games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the NFL playoffs you're not assured the two best teams make it to the Super Bowl. Many of year either the NFC or the AFC may have the best two teams. That's why many feel the SEC Championship is the closest thing the NCAA has to a real playoff game.

 

I know you don't really believe this, and if you do........

 

yer clueless - if there is anything that has been proven on the field it is that USC DOMINATES the SEC conference.period.

 

so to try and state that the SEC championship is some sort of NC "Playoff" game is a joke. Brian pointed it out below, but it is a pretty safe bet that USC in any of those years beats down FLA and LSU.

 

the SEC is good, no doubt but y'all are fortunate the way the system is set up, bc in a playoff and USC in the picture we are looking at a whole different story.

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