Grits and Shins Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Bronco Billy: Who said that playing ranked teams doesn't matter? Man, you sure are twisting this argument all over the place to try to make a point that I don't think you can make. My bad ... I didn't read your statement in it's entirety before responding. Ranking = popularity, whether it be mid-season or at the end of the season. How many times has a team with 2 loses been ranked higher than a team with 1 or 0 loses? I don't know why they bother to play the championship game ... why not take the vote and simply declare the winner ... oh never mind, I know ... because of all the money involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansas State 2000 Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 Master Wijssegger:How many times has a team with 2 loses been ranked higher than a team with 1 or 0 loses? That is because the team with the 0 or 1 loses probably played Prairie View 10 times.The team with 2 losses played Florida State & Kansas State. Play a harder schedule and get the respect in the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Kansas State 2000:....respect in the polls. respect in the polls = popularity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Master Wijssegger: Kansas State 2000:....respect in the polls. respect in the polls = popularityPlease provide proof for your statement. The polls certainly aren't perfect, IMO, but they can be a pretty good indicator of who the top 25 or so teams in the country are. IMO, the AP poll that is taken of sportswriters is the most suspect because of the lack of qualifications of the participants, but the ESPN poll of coaches (used to be UPI) is fairly solid. Sure, there may be some decrepancies & some politics involved, but you have to take the polls with a grain of salt. KSU2 made a great example of OU that came from nowhere in the polls to national champs in 2000 - because they climbed in the polls by their play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 BB ... the AP pole is pure popularity and you said it yourself the ESPN pole has discrepencies and politics. These polls can't be "taken with the grain of salt" because they are used to determine the national champion. Another problem I can think of is that unless your team plays on national television you aren't going to be ranked. So if you are a well known team like Oklahoma you can indeed "come from nowhere" ... but if you are not a well known team then you will never "come from nowhere". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansas State 2000 Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 Master Wijssegger:Another problem I can think of is that unless your team plays on national television you aren't going to be ranked. So if you are a well known team like Oklahoma you can indeed "come from nowhere" ... but if you are not a well known team then you will never "come from nowhere". ref: Kansas State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 MW, who are you talking about??? A little bit of reference would be extremely helpful, or are you talking in vague hypotheticals? Although I am a strong proponent of having to play to win the NC, there are exceptions, even in a tournament. EX - NC State beats Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma team in the 1983 BB tournament. Only a fool would think that NC State was a better team than Houston was, given the talent that was on the court and the capabilities of both coaches. But the upset happened that day. That didn't make NC State the best team in the country, but it did make them the National Champions. I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why Miami was not the best college FB team in the country last year. They went undefeated, played a reasonably decent schedule to where they could have lost had they been the equal or close to that of one of the better teams on the schedule, then they backed it up by whipping Nebraska in their bowl game. What more do they need to do to convince you that they were the best college FB team in the country - and consequently very deserving of the title of national champions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Bronco Billy:MW, who are you talking about??? A little bit of reference would be extremely helpful, or are you talking in vague hypotheticals? Although I am a strong proponent of having to play to win the NC, there are exceptions, even in a tournament. EX - NC State beats Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma team in the 1983 BB tournament. Only a fool would think that NC State was a better team than Houston was, given the talent that was on the court and the capabilities of both coaches. But the upset happened that day. That didn't make NC State the best team in the country, but it did make them the National Champions. I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why Miami was not the best college FB team in the country last year. They went undefeated, played a reasonably decent schedule to where they could have lost had they been the equal or close to that of one of the better teams on the schedule, then they backed it up by whipping Nebraska in their bowl game. What more do they need to do to convince you that they were the best college FB team in the country - and consequently very deserving of the title of national champions? The national championship game was a farce ... Miami was pitted against a team that lost their conference title by double digits. Nebraska wasn't even close to beating Colorado to win their conference ... as matter of fact Colorado humiliated Nebraska. Then to pit Nebraska against Miami for the championship was ludicrous. Miami was given a "lob" pitch to hit, and as expected they knocked it out of the park. Both Colorado and Oregon had more right to be in the championship game than Nebraska did. Both teams finished strong while Nebraska came into the championship game off a humiliating double digit loss to Colorado. You don't really expect me to believe that you think Nebraska was really the second best team in the nation at that time do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 I never made that claim, and I agree that Nebraska was not the 2nd best team in the country. I'm a huge BUFFs fan, but I have to admit that Oregon was most deserving of a shot at Miami that day. Which completely detracts & distracts from my question. Please put forth an argument as to why Miami wasn't the best team in the country last year & deserving of the national championship, and then suggest another team that should have been the national champions. If you are going to put forth the argument that Miami wasn't the best team and won simply because of popularity, then I'm sure that you must have an alternative team in mind that you feel was a better team than Miami. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansas State 2000 Posted June 5, 2002 Author Share Posted June 5, 2002 Master Wijssegger:...ludicrous. That explains it, we are dealing with Mike Tyson. loco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Bronco Billy:I never made that claim, and I agree that Nebraska was not the 2nd best team in the country. I'm a huge BUFFs fan, but I have to admit that Oregon was most deserving of a shot at Miami that day. Which completely detracts & distracts from my question. Please put forth an argument as to why Miami wasn't the best team in the country last year & deserving of the national championship, and then suggest another team that should have been the national champions. If you are going to put forth the argument that Miami wasn't the best team and won simply because of popularity, then I'm sure that you must have an alternative team in mind that you feel was a better team than Miami. I have already said that I do not know who the best team in the country was last year ... nobody does. I don't really have an alternative team in mind. But many many many many times in other sports the number 1 ranked team going into a playoff system fails to even make the championship game. The team that is "supposed" to win fails to make the championship game. In NCAA division I football the number 1 team has the luxury of only having to win ONE game, in this case against an inferior opponent (one we agree was not the number 2 team in the nation). They don't have to play a series of games against the top teams in the country to determine the rightful contestants for the championship. Because of the way in which Miami was awarded the national championship last year I am not prepared to say they were the best ... but I am not prepared to name any other team either as no other team "earned it" either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 7, 2002 Share Posted June 7, 2002 why did the chicken cross the road? to join the Big East. if you're talking to an fsu fan, you can substitute ACC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 Bronco Billy[QB}LOL yourself. Last time I noticed, teams still had to win their games to have a chance to play in the big game. 2 loses means you are out of contention, regardless of how popular your team is. Or do you disagree? Perhaps a closet BYU fan? As far as MoV being taken out, I heartily approve. I'm tired of watching teams like Nebraska schedule non-con cupcakes and then pounding them 73-0 to get an edge in the standings. I would like to see Strength of Schedule weighted higher. Teams that have the sack to play tough programs in order to strengthen their team (and thus take a much higher risk of a loss) should be rewarded. It sure works in college basketball, and you see some fabulous games in the beginning of the year because of it. I'd rather see a team that has 2-3 losses playing for the national championship if they had the guts to schedule 2 or 3 top 25 programs in their non-con schedule rather than seeing teams with pretty W-L records that play 1-2 really tough games all year (read ACC & Big East schools, and to some extent Big 12 schools, though that is lessening as the conference gets tougher).[/QB] A lound round applause for Bronco Billy who says exactyl my sentiments. I've been saying this for a few years and got really riled up about it in '97 just before the BS ... er ... BCS was implemented and we voted for national championships a worse system. I'm still a big fan of dumping the system completly and going all out for a college playoff system, but that seems financially impossible. Given that we have the BCS is a reality and we are forced to live with it, getting rid of margin of error and putting heavier weight on strength of schedle is the way to go. If we scrapped the voting entirely and just went pure strength of schedule, we'd have as best a system as we could without a playoff. Again, the more emphasis put into strength of schedule, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat1 Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 While I feel that strength of schedule is more important that margin of victory, there are still too many flaws in the system. What happens to a team that plays in a weak conference? Non-conference games can't help there either since these are scheduled years in advance and there is no way to predict what teams will do. There is absolutely no way that any of the top college programs will ever schedule each other either. There's too much money at stake for them to risk losing 2-3 games. Unitl there is a playoff, there will always be some one complaining about the legitimacy of the National Champion. BTW- I'm a Nebraska fan, born and bred, and I can't think of anyone here in Nebraska that felt Nebraska deserved to be in the Championship. Sure, there were a few, but the majority felt that Colorado should have been there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansas State 2000 Posted June 11, 2002 Author Share Posted June 11, 2002 Phat1:BTW- I'm a Nebraska fan, born and bred, and I can't think of anyone here in Nebraska that felt Nebraska deserved to be in the Championship. Sure, there were a few, but the majority felt that Colorado should have been there. That decision was the same as if I robbed your house and you went to jail for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 If we switch to a more strength of schedule friendly system, a huge side benefit would be the ammount of good inter-conference games that are scheduled in the regular season. I use to bad-mouth Kansas State and Nebraska for putting Division II-A fodder on their schedule and playing nobody all year to "claim" their place in the national "championship farce". Now nobody ridicules them anymore, because all the college teams are doing it too. How can I point fingers at Nebraska when Michigan has joined the dark side of candy-coating the schedule too? :mad: Strength of schedule is the gold standard, but the best is scrap (or reconfigure/demasculate) the bowls and go for a full playoff system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat1 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Voltaire - The only way that the top teams would even consider scheduling another top program would be if the NCAA made it a requirement. Such as to be considered for the Nat. Champ., a team must play a certain number of ranked opponents. It might not be a bad idea. This would cetainly produce a lot more common opponents for teams to be judged on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Bronco Billy: Master Wijssegger: Kansas State 2000:....respect in the polls. respect in the polls = popularityIMO, the AP poll that is taken of sportswriters is the most suspect because of the lack of qualifications of the participants, but the ESPN poll of coaches (used to be UPI) is fairly solid. Sure, there may be some decrepancies & some politics involved, but you have to take the polls with a grain of salt. Such as when the ESPN poll awarded Neb a share of the NC because Osborne was retiring.... BOTH are highly flawed; there are numerous reports of coaches doing a half-assed job of filling out their polls, or handing it off to someone. IMO, the AP actually IS the more legit one - sure, many sportswriters might not know a flanker from a split end, but they DO have more interest in watching scores from around the country. A D-1 HC should really be focused on winning HIS games and not worrying whether BYU or Iowa State is a better pick for the 25th best team in the country. Joe Reporter, on the other hand, has nothing better to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat1 Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Chavez - As a Nebraska fan, I agree that the ESPN coaches poll did give a share of the title to Neb. due to Osborne's retirement. Although, if they'd played each other that year for the Nat. Champ., I think Nebraska would have won. Sure, I'm Husker homer, but I just didn't think Michigan was that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no one Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Phat1:...if they'd played each other that year for the Nat. Champ., I think Nebraska would have won. Sure, I'm Husker homer, but I just didn't think Michigan was that good. I agree, NU would have won the NC straight up if the two teams played. I doubt it would have even been close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Kansas State 2000: Phat1:...if they'd played each other that year for the Nat. Champ., I think Nebraska would have won. Sure, I'm Husker homer, but I just didn't think Michigan was that good. I agree, NU would have won the NC straight up if the two teams played. I doubt it would have even been close.Too bad we never got to find out; but the main point was that merely being a "football coach" doesn't really give anyone greater acumen on the national scene (or if it does, it's often not used for various reasons) nor does it free one from kowtowing to the "popular" vote - seriously, how does Michigan fall from 1 to 2 AFTER winning their bowl game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no one Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Chavez:...how does Michigan fall from 1 to 2 AFTER winning their bowl game? True, we will never know I guess. Come on Playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat1 Posted June 23, 2002 Share Posted June 23, 2002 Chavez: Kansas State 2000: Phat1:...if they'd played each other that year for the Nat. Champ., I think Nebraska would have won. Sure, I'm Husker homer, but I just didn't think Michigan was that good. I agree, NU would have won the NC straight up if the two teams played. I doubt it would have even been close. Too bad we never got to find out; but the main point was that merely being a "football coach" doesn't really give anyone greater acumen on the national scene (or if it does, it's often not used for various reasons) nor does it free one from kowtowing to the "popular" vote - seriously, how does Michigan fall from 1 to 2 AFTER winning their bowl game?I agree with all that you've said. The only reason I can give you is the margin of victory in the games. Michigan won a very close game, while Nebraska blew out Manning's Vols. Not the best reason, but the only one I can think of other than it being a good-bye present for Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Master WijsseggerB. If the opponent and their ranking doesn't matter why should teams schedule powder puff opponents so they can be "undefeated"?[/QB] As a Miami fan, I resent that. Yes, the Big East is a cake walk (don't you think that we want better), but the non-con schedule: 1-Sep at Penn State W 33-7 6-Oct Troy State W 38-7 - I'll definitely give you this one. 13-Oct at No. 13 Florida State W 49-27 24-Nov No. 12 Washington W 65-7 3-Jan vs No. 4 Nebraska W 37-14 And remember that games are scheduled many years in advance. I give Miami credit for playing these teams. That must have ranked at the top of non-conference schedules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.