ESPN's new agenda

[GWPFFL BrianW]

With Boise out, they've decided that they now hate TCU. It's just comical.

[detlef]

With Boise out, they've decided that they now hate TCU. It's just comical.

What I found surprising is how few people who had been voting for BSU switched their vote for TCU. I wonder how many would have switched from BSU to Auburn even if the kid would have made that kick.

[Living the Dream]

With Boise out, they've decided that they now hate TCU. It's just comical.

 

 

I actually understand this theory. Herby said it best and I agree. TCU was being brought along with Boise, since both were undefeated. But after watching Boise struggle in the 4th and their D gased when they played their first meaningful down in the 4th quarter since Sept, TCU is now being looked at on their own merit, without just being brought along for the ride with Boise. Is it better to be 11-1, playing a meaningful game every week or every other week, or being undefeated, and only having to get up for 2 games a year, where your starters are not even in the game in the 4th qtr in most games.

 

Obviously a playoff is the only way to really seperate this mess. Like we hear all the time, TCU can play with any of these teams. But in most cases, the only opportunity they have is in the bowl, after a month to prepare for their opponent. Could TCU still play with these teams, if they had to go through a playoff, of one right after another, week to week, to get to a title game. I seriously doubt it.

 

Edit to Add: I really really like TCU. But if Auburn loses this week, and they are 12-1, and TCU is 12-0, I still put Auburn in the BCS title game, because of the gauntlet they had to go through to be 12-1, and they are playing an extra game, that TCU is not playing that gave them the opportunity to lose, TCU didnt have. I hate these conference champ games, where some teams have them, others do not, and those that do, could lose their opportunity, where they meet another quality team, while the others are just sitting back hoping for a loss above them in these games, so they can say they now belong in the title game.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Living the Dream

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I just find it funny though, because from the word go, ESPN was determined to get Boise into that National Championship game. Their dream game was Alabama vs Boise. Then Bama went down, and finally Boise. And now they don't know what to do.

 

I'm thrilled that ESPN wasn't able to manufacture their "national championship" but they sure did try.

[detlef]

I actually understand this theory. Herby said it best and I agree. TCU was being brought along with Boise, since both were undefeated. But after watching Boise struggle in the 4th and their D gased when they played their first meaningful down in the 4th quarter since Sept, TCU is now being looked at on their own merit, without just being brought along for the ride with Boise. Is it better to be 11-1, playing a meaningful game every week or every other week, or being undefeated, and only having to get up for 2 games a year, where your starters are not even in the game in the 4th qtr in most games.

 

Obviously a playoff is the only way to really seperate this mess. Like we hear all the time, TCU can play with any of these teams. But in most cases, the only opportunity they have is in the bowl, after a month to prepare for their opponent. Could TCU still play with these teams, if they had to go through a playoff, of one right after another, week to week, to get to a title game. I seriously doubt it.

 

Edit to Add: I really really like TCU. But if Auburn loses this week, and they are 12-1, and TCU is 12-0, I still put Auburn in the BCS title game, because of the gauntlet they had to go through to be 12-1, and they are playing an extra game, that TCU is not playing that gave them the opportunity to lose, TCU didnt have. I hate these conference champ games, where some teams have them, others do not, and those that do, could lose their opportunity, where they meet another quality team, while the others are just sitting back hoping for a loss above them in these games, so they can say they now belong in the title game.

It is regrettable that TCU and BSU should be lumped together. Especially since the knock on both of them has been the conferences they play in and BSU lost their game in-conference. Had BSU been exposed by a team from a BCS conference, I could see the argument a bit more, but they're still two different teams in two different conferences.

 

As for the conference championship being un-fair. I agree that they should all either have or all not have it. That said, it's been an advantage as often as it has been an extra hurdle. Sure, it's another chance to lose, so this year Auburn would be better off not having to play it. On the other hand, it's allowed SEC teams to jump past other schools in years past as well. And, heck, it's even been ignored not too terribly long ago when OU got beaten soundly and still got to play in the NC game.

[Ursa Majoris]

I just find it funny though, because from the word go, ESPN was determined to get Boise into that National Championship game. Their dream game was Alabama vs Boise. Then Bama went down, and finally Boise. And now they don't know what to do.

 

I'm thrilled that ESPN wasn't able to manufacture their "national championship" but they sure did try.

ESPN sucks major balls in every way. In the summer, there are only two teams playing baseball according to them, their pro football content is usually wrong and they deliberately dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. They are to sports what MTV is to music - completely worthless.

[Living the Dream]

It should get ignored again this yr, if Auburn loses.. But teams in the club house like Oregon who doesnt have to play this type of team again getting a free pass to this game is the problem. Say Oregon had to beat Stanford again in a conf champ game, to get to the NC game, one of these 2 teams would be knocked out of the BCS all together, and the other would likley earn their way to the NC game, like Auburn is going to have to do.

 

 

Edit to Add: there was no undefeated team the year OU was still #1 in the BCS after losing the Champ game. Had it been the year Auburn and Sc were both still undefeated it would not have been over looked. OU beat something like 5 or 6 ranked teams that year, where SC beat 2. Which is why the computers had them still an overwhelming #1 that year, even after losing that game.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Living the Dream

[GWPFFL BrianW]

ESPN sucks major balls in every way. In the summer, there are only two teams playing baseball according to them, their pro football content is usually wrong and they deliberately dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. They are to sports what MTV is to music - completely worthless.

 

 

I already saw the writing on the wall with that network a long time ago, but 3 things pushed me over the edge. "The Decision" , the Brett Favre saga, and blatant attempt to manufacture this Boise team into the national championship. Making it seem like Boise State vs Virginia Tech was the biggest game of all time, and on we went.

[Rockerbraves]

As for the conference championship being un-fair. I agree that they should all either have or all not have it. That said, it's been an advantage as often as it has been an extra hurdle. Sure, it's another chance to lose, so this year Auburn would be better off not having to play it. On the other hand, it's allowed SEC teams to jump past other schools in years past as well. And, heck, it's even been ignored not too terribly long ago when OU got beaten soundly and still got to play in the NC game.

One thing is for certain the SEC decision to have a conference championship was well thought out. I guaranteed it included some of the top mathematicians who crunched the numbers and gave their approval.

[detlef]

It should get ignored again this yr, if Auburn loses.. But teams in the club house like Oregon who doesnt have to play this type of team again getting a free pass to this game is the problem. Say Oregon had to beat Stanford again in a conf champ game, to get to the NC game, one of these 2 teams would be knocked out of the BCS all together, and the other would likley earn their way to the NC game, like Auburn is going to have to do.

 

 

Edit to Add: there was no undefeated team the year OU was still #1 in the BCS after losing the Champ game. Had it been the year Auburn and Sc were both still undefeated it would not have been over looked. OU beat something like 5 or 6 ranked teams that year, where SC beat 2. Which is why the computers had them still an overwhelming #1 that year, even after losing that game.

I wasn't discrediting OU's right to the game (USC took care of that question on the field). I was merely illustrating that sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you, and sometimes it doesn't matter.

 

Actually, I can remember a few times when a team was knocked from a BCS bowl game by virtue of losing the SEC title game, but I don't recall that they were actually in line for the NC game itself. Has that actually happened? Again, not sure either way.

[Rockerbraves]

I wasn't discrediting OU's right to the game (USC took care of that question on the field). I was merely illustrating that sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you, and sometimes it doesn't matter.

 

Actually, I can remember a few times when a team was knocked from a BCS bowl game by virtue of losing the SEC title game, but I don't recall that they were actually in line for the NC game itself. Has that actually happened? Again, not sure either way.

LSU beat Tennessee their first trip to the conference championship game and if I recall the Vols would have played in the BCS NC game.

[Living the Dream]

I wasn't discrediting OU's right to the game (USC took care of that question on the field). I was merely illustrating that sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you, and sometimes it doesn't matter.

 

Actually, I can remember a few times when a team was knocked from a BCS bowl game by virtue of losing the SEC title game, but I don't recall that they were actually in line for the NC game itself. Has that actually happened? Again, not sure either way.

 

 

Sc wasnt in that game, so they didnt take care of crap. OU lost to LSU in the Superdome 21-14. and our QB had a broken wrist in that game, which was broken in the 2nd qtr of the Champ game. Ever think that may have had something to do with the 2 loses. Not making excuses, that is old news. But lets break Leinarts wrist and see if they win the Championship.

[detlef]

LSU beat Tennessee their first trip to the conference championship game and if I recall the Vols would have played in the BCS NC game.

That was the one I thought might be the case, but I couldn't recall exactly.

 

Sc wasnt in that game, so they didnt take care of crap. OU lost to LSU in the Superdome 21-14. and our QB had a broken wrist in that game, which was broken in the 2nd qtr of the Champ game. Ever think that may have had something to do with the 2 loses. Not making excuses, that is old news. But lets break Leinarts wrist and see if they win the Championship.

Sorry, wrong year.

 

Regardless. It looks like Rocker has found one year where the conference game may have cost a team. The OU game doesn't change the fact that losing that game did not cost OU, and there are at least a few times in recent years where the game helped. It helped FL jump past Michigan and it help LSU jump past whomever they did when they made it with 2 losses.

[Living the Dream]

That was the one I thought might be the case, but I couldn't recall exactly.

 

 

Sorry, wrong year.

 

Regardless. It looks like Rocker has found one year where the conference game may have cost a team. The OU game doesn't change the fact that losing that game did not cost OU, and there are at least a few times in recent years where the game helped. It helped FL jump past Michigan and it help LSU jump past whomever they did when they made it with 2 losses.

 

 

No one wanted to see Ohio St / Michigan again, so someone was jumping Michigan regardless. And LSU jumped into the argument, when West Virgina lost the back yard bowl to Pitt. Both the #1 and #2 teams lost the final weekend, Missouri losing to OU, and West Virginia losing to Pitt. So had #2 WV not lost to Pitt, Ohio st would have played WV, not LSU. It took both of those loses above to get LSU in the mix.

[detlef]

No one wanted to see Ohio St / Michigan again, so someone was jumping Michigan regardless. And LSU jumped into the argument, when West Virgina lost the back yard bowl to Pitt. Both the #1 and #2 teams lost the final weekend, Missouri losing to OU, and West Virginia losing to Pitt. So had #2 WV not lost to Pitt, Ohio st would have played WV, not LSU. It took both of those loses above to get LSU in the mix.

LSU jumped more than just those two.

 

I actually think you're right about Michigan/OSU, but can you imagine the hysteria if Michigan was ranked #2, then a Florida team without having another game to play, all of a sudden jumped them without the benefit of having played another game?

 

And, while LSU needed help, they did jump an idle Georgia, and Kansas team as well as V Tech (who had no business being ahead of them to begin with considering how badly LSU waxed them earlier that year).

 

Honestly, the perceived advantage that teams with conference championship games have is why the leagues that don't have them are pushing their final games of the year back. So, they to, have a chance to do something and not get passed while idle.

[Living the Dream]

LSU jumped more than just those two.

 

I actually think you're right about Michigan/OSU, but can you imagine the hysteria if Michigan was ranked #2, then a Florida team without having another game to play, all of a sudden jumped them without the benefit of having played another game?

 

And, while LSU needed help, they did jump an idle Georgia, and Kansas team as well as V Tech (who had no business being ahead of them to begin with considering how badly LSU waxed them earlier that year).

 

Honestly, the perceived advantage that teams with conference championship games have is why the leagues that don't have them are pushing their final games of the year back. So, they to, have a chance to do something and not get passed while idle.

 

 

LSU was the conference champ, GA wasnt, so that could be expected, and Kansas didnt win the Big 12 either. GA and Kansas would have both been idle regardless, since they didnt make the champ game, so Im not sure why you bring that up.

 

And I do not think there should be hysteria at all about idle teams being flip flopped. Both human polls think Wisconsin is better than Stanford, as well as the harris poll. , I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe they shouldnt have been that high like Va tech in the first place

 

And there still could be some shakeup in the BCS between Stanford and Wisconsin, with OU passing Stanford in the computers with another quality win over Nebraska. OU is ahead of Wisky already in the computers, 6 to 7th. but if they pass Stanford and stanford is now 5th and Wisky 7, there could be a shakeup in the top 4 still. So 2 idle teams could flip flop because a team between them in the computers, passes the other team as well, narrowing the gap in the computers a full spot

[detlef]

LSU was the conference champ, GA wasnt, so that could be expected, and Kansas didnt win the Big 12 either. Va Tech had 1 less loss, which is why they were ranked ahead of them, if I remember correctly. GA and Kansas would have both been idle regardless, since they didnt make the champ game, so Im not sure why you bring that up.

 

And I do not think there should be hysteria at all about idle teams being flip flopped. Both human polls think Wisconsin is better than Stanford, as well as the harris poll. , I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe they shouldnt have been that high like Va tech in the first place

 

And there still could be some shakeup in the BCS between Stanford and Wisconsin, with OU passing Stanford in the computers with another quality win over Nebraska. OU is ahead of Wisky already in the computers, 6 to 7th. but if they pass Stanford and stanford is now 5th and Wisky 7, there could be a shakeup in the top 4 still. So 2 idle teams could flip flop because a team between them in the computers, passes the other team as well, narrowing the gap in the computers a full spot.

First off, V Tech had 2 losses just like them, go back and look. I think the reason they were ranked ahead of them the week leading into conference championship week was the stupid bit about teams that lose late drop further back, because LSU had just dropped that OT game to MSU.

 

Secondly, I am merely pointing out that there have been times when a team was able to advance into the NC game because they had an extra game to prove themselves. How else would you explain that LSU was ranked behind 6 teams, and then was behind only 1, despite the fact that only 2 of those 6 lost? Would everyone have just changed their mind had LSU not gotten another game? Actually, looking at it again, there's another example of a team losing a shot at the NC game because Missouri did just that. So, there you go, Missed that one. Regardless, it's still a net zero sum. One team lost it's spot in the game because they had to play another game and another earned a spot because they got a shot at the very same.

 

As for Stanford v Wisc, that's not the only way that could change. if OU loses to OSU, I'm sure that effects idle Stanford's computer rankings because OU's ranking goes down and Stanford lost to them. Not sure why this has anything to do with the one ranking that truly matters, who is 1 and 2 going into the bowl season. My point was that, if after the OSU v Michigan game in the '06 season, Michigan was ranked #2, how else could anyone explain FL jumping them in the polls without FL playing another game? They had a better week of practice? I can assure you that, as pissed as Stanford fans may be that this costs them a #4 spot, and therefor an assured spot in the BCS, it would be nothing compared to taking a team out of the #2 spot and replacing them with another despite neither playing a game.

 

None the less. The point remains and has been echoed by many, every time someone implies that schools that have to play in a conference championship get an unfair shake, that it works both ways. That is all.

 

And, say hi to your buddy Living the Dream for me.

 

ETA: I actually highly doubt OU winning will have any effect on Stanford vs Wisc rankings. They're certainly not going to jump either in terms of the polls because of the fact that polls both like Stanford and Wisconsin. Plus OU has 2 losses. I don't think they average the standings, they add everything up. That's why when you look at the BCS breakdown, the percentage numbers don't follow any pattern. It's not like Oregon gets X number of points for being ranked 1st in the Harris Poll, they get points according to how many votes they get. So, if Auburn is barely behind them in the polls but TCU is way behind Auburn, Auburn doesn't get as few less points than OU in the BCS from the polls as TCU does less than Auburn. It appears that the same thing happens with the computer. So, whatever the spread between Stanford and Wisc is now, should remain the same (provided, again, that OU losing doesn't effect that. Mind you, that does bump up OSU who Stanford beat, so even that could be a wash).

Edited November 29, 2010 by detlef