PDA

View Full Version : Generic BCS thread



billybreen
11-08-2008, 07:06 PM
Let me know if there's already a BCS thread, but I didn't find one.

So, PSU goes down. Texas Tech has a tough one in a few hours with Ok St. Alabama is in a nail biter with LSU, but my guess is they'll pull it out. If Alabama or Texas Tech loses, what then? There are a mountain of one loss teams, so we may be shaping up for yet another BCS apocalypse.

rockymtn devil
11-08-2008, 07:13 PM
Let me know if there's already a BCS thread, but I didn't find one.

So, PSU goes down. Texas Tech has a tough one in a few hours with Ok St. Alabama is in a nail biter with LSU, but my guess is they'll pull it out. If Alabama or Texas Tech loses, what then? There are a mountain of one loss teams, so we may be shaping up for yet another BCS apocalypse.

I don't think Alabama is good enough to win out. They lose at some point. Ditto for Texas Tech. I'll say--as of today--Florida vs. USC. The B12 teams cancel each other out and the Gators beat Alabama in the SEC Title Game.

hc5duke
11-08-2008, 07:56 PM
I want a rematch of UT-TT. An all-Texas championship... thy will be done. :D

A-Tex Devil
11-08-2008, 08:03 PM
I'm just happy we don't have to talk about Penn State anymore. Good bye Big Televen. Thanks for playing. I readily admit I am drunk on the Kool Aid that wishes the Big Televen would go away this year. That being said, I would have loved it if a one loss team had overtaken an undefeated Penn State to the championship game so I could hear the Big Televen commissioner continue to defend the BCS.

Now that we don't have to worry about Penn State getting slammed in Miami, let's get to it: I am glad the computers have UT as the best one loss team, but I really think Florida is probably better. In the long run, though, I won't argue against any one loss Big XII or SEC team in the championship game over another. Just too close. People are going to be upset about the final outcome, and that's the hidden genious in the BCS.

The bowls will tell, but Big XII south best "division" in the BCS era? Discuss.

ugadevil
11-08-2008, 09:20 PM
I think Texas has the best shot at winning out and winning the Big 12 Championship. If they finish the season with only their one loss at Texas Tech, I think they deserve to play in the championship game. It's looking like their opponent will come down to the winner of the Florida/Alabama game in Atlanta. I really hope the Tide rolls through Florida because my hatred for Tim Tebow and Urban Meyer is probably growing to an unhealthy level. There's still a ton of football to be played though.

billybreen
11-08-2008, 09:44 PM
I think Texas has the best shot at winning out and winning the Big 12 Championship. If they finish the season with only their one loss at Texas Tech, I think they deserve to play in the championship game. It's looking like their opponent will come down to the winner of the Florida/Alabama game in Atlanta. I really hope the Tide rolls through Florida because my hatred for Tim Tebow and Urban Meyer is probably growing to an unhealthy level. There's still a ton of football to be played though.

A Big-12 / SEC BCS title game is the best case scenario. In that case, you are effectively treating the SEC and Big-12 championship games as a Final Four and we are ever so close to the idyllic playoff system advocated by our president-elect. I don't want any crap Pac-10 or Big-10 teams ruining that dream.

billybreen
11-08-2008, 09:46 PM
I don't think Alabama is good enough to win out. They lose at some point. Ditto for Texas Tech. I'll say--as of today--Florida vs. USC. The B12 teams cancel each other out and the Gators beat Alabama in the SEC Title Game.

While Alabama could definitely lose the SEC title game, it's hard to see them losing either of the next two (Miss St / Auburn).

Wander
11-09-2008, 08:55 AM
Texas against the winner of Oklahoma/Texas Tech.

Florida doesn't deserve a spot over Texas right now. Blowout of Georgia on a neutral field roughly cancels a close win over Oklahoma on a neutral field. A home blowout of LSU is about the same as a home blowout of Missouri. A loss at home to Ole Miss is much worse than a loss on the road to Texas Tech. That leaves Texas with a win over Oklahoma State, and Florida has nothing comparable to that. After that it's a bunch of blowouts of bad teams.

ugadevil
11-09-2008, 09:33 AM
What if FSU beats Florida and then Florida turns around and beats Alabama? I'm pulling for complete chaos!

Lavabe
11-09-2008, 10:54 AM
Looks like Texas Tech had a good night. I guess it's down to 'Bama and TT this morning. Guess I would have to go with TT; strange to say, but I don't think the SEC is the best conference this year.:eek::eek:

Uh oh ... I expect a volley from ugadevil.:)

Cheers,
Lavabe

YmoBeThere
11-09-2008, 10:56 AM
Looks like Texas Tech had a good night. I guess it's down to 'Bama and TT this morning. Guess I would have to go with TT; strange to say, but I don't think the SEC is the best conference this year.:eek::eek:

Uh oh ... I expect a volley from ugadevil.:)

Cheers,
Lavabe

The reporters on ESPN's The Sportsreporters concure with your statement. The SEC is definitely down this year.

Lavabe
11-09-2008, 11:00 AM
The reporters on ESPN's The Sportsreporters concure with your statement. The SEC is definitely down this year.

The Big Eight/Southwest Conference (err, the older versions of the Big Twelve) seems LOADED this year. TT, T, OK, OkSt, and Mizzou make a great selection of teams.

Who can figure out this conference?

Cheers,
Lavabe

sue71, esq
11-09-2008, 11:04 AM
For the record, I (very gently) am not a fan of LSU. They win the games they shouldn't and lose the ones they should (ahem, read: Alabama). :mad:

billybreen
11-09-2008, 11:08 AM
Texas against the winner of Oklahoma/Texas Tech.

Florida doesn't deserve a spot over Texas right now. Blowout of Georgia on a neutral field roughly cancels a close win over Oklahoma on a neutral field. A home blowout of LSU is about the same as a home blowout of Missouri. A loss at home to Ole Miss is much worse than a loss on the road to Texas Tech. That leaves Texas with a win over Oklahoma State, and Florida has nothing comparable to that. After that it's a bunch of blowouts of bad teams.

Agree completely. I find this Florida team pretty boring and forgettable, so having them in the title game would be wrong (unless everyone else drops to 2 losses, which is highly unlikely).

A-Tex Devil
11-09-2008, 11:17 AM
The Big Eight/Southwest Conference (err, the older versions of the Big Twelve) seems LOADED this year. TT, T, OK, OkSt, and Mizzou make a great selection of teams.

Who can figure out this conference?

Cheers,
Lavabe

I have complete Matt Leinart/Ademola Okulaja disease about Tech's victory against Texas. I"m still stewing about that one. Horrible, horrible offensive game plan against the Tech defense in the first half, drops, and refusing to play our best running back until the end of third quarter. The second half of that game was what I was expecting.

And what kills me -- even though Harrell and Crabtree are amazing -- Texas held Tech to 4 offensive touchdowns and was one second away from holding the Tech offense to 3 points in the second half. And people act like Tech's offense dismantled Texas. Tech's defense is what stepped up in the first half and is the main reason they won that game (with help from Greg Davis and the dropsies).
/rant

If OU beats TT and everything else holds to form, the highest ranking Big 12 South team in the BCS gets to teh championship game. No clue who that would be. If that team loses to Mizzou, though, I think you see one of the two others sneaking in a la Nebraska in 2001. It'll be a fun ride -- and I highly suspect something unexpected happens along the way.

JasonEvans
11-09-2008, 12:43 PM
The winner of Florida-Alabama is a lock to make the final game unless Fla blows it to FSU and then beats Alabama.

If Oklahoma beats Texas Tech then I do not know what you do with the Big 12. Ok over TT, T over Ok, and TT over T. How do you figure out which of those 3 teams gets to play for the title?!?!?! Does anyone know how the Big 12 does the tiebreaker to get into the title game? Whew, what a mess!!

I just want to be sure that there is no way USC slips in there.

What does the BCS do with Utah and Boise State? They will both be unbeaten and easily in the BCS top 10. Heck, Utah will likely be in the BCS top 5. Some good Big 12 team is gonna go to a lousy bowl so that these clubs can make it to a BCS game and get pounded.

--Jason "BCS chaos = playoff... someday" Evans

A-Tex Devil
11-09-2008, 12:51 PM
How do you figure out which of those 3 teams gets to play for the title?!?!?! Does anyone know how the Big 12 does the tiebreaker to get into the title game?

There are a list of like 5 tiebreakers, but none of them break the tie, so it goes to the team that's highest in the BCS. If OU beats Tech and everything holds to form, I think they have the inside track. Texas is ahead of them now, but after OU plays Tech and OSU, they may catch up. Texas has Mizzou in its bag and must hope that Mizzou continues to win. OU must hope the same for TCU. Tech is screwed in a 3-way tie because of the 2 1-AA teams on its schedule.

And BTW -- every voter that voted for OU over UT in the Harris and Coaches polls (and the one Harris poll voter who put Texas ahead of Tech) should be ashamed....

sue71, esq
11-09-2008, 01:13 PM
I just want to be sure that there is no way USC slips in there.



Hey! Show a little love. :)

dukegirlinsc
11-09-2008, 03:34 PM
It's a hot mess (as it usually is this time of year) and I can't wait to watch it unfold.

PLAYOFFS, dangit.

billybreen
11-09-2008, 03:40 PM
It's a hot mess (as it usually is this time of year) and I can't wait to watch it unfold.

PLAYOFFS, dangit.

Agreed. I actually think college football is my favorite sport. I like it more than any pro sports, and I think I even prefer it to college hoops (perhaps because I don't have any strong allegiances in football, so I can enjoy it without being stressed). With that said, the postseason in college football is a disgrace compared to the month long awesomeness of March Madness.

ugadevil
11-09-2008, 04:19 PM
Looks like Texas Tech had a good night. I guess it's down to 'Bama and TT this morning. Guess I would have to go with TT; strange to say, but I don't think the SEC is the best conference this year.:eek::eek:

Uh oh ... I expect a volley from ugadevil.:)

Cheers,
Lavabe

You'll get no argument from me. The Big XII South is one of the most loaded divisions in a conference I've ever seen. The really only has two great teams this year in Alabama and Florida. Georgia & LSU have shown flashes of being good, and the rest of the conference has been mediocre/bad.

I haven't seen the standings for this week, but I've been hearing the Florida will jump Texas. I think that's complete BS. Florida's loss at home to an unranked Ole Miss team is terrible when compared to Texas' loss on the road to a highly ranked Texas Tech team in the last seconds. And I don't want to hear anything about style points. Who cares if you beat a team by 30 points instead of 40? I'll never have respect for Urban Meyer when he puts Tim Tebow out there and tries to throw 50 yard bombs when his team is up 40. God I hate Florida.

billybreen
11-09-2008, 09:24 PM
I haven't seen the standings for this week, but I've been hearing the Florida will jump Texas. I think that's complete BS.

Have no fear, it didn't happen (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3692224).

sue71, esq
11-09-2008, 09:30 PM
At least Penn State fell below USC. Phew!



1 down, uhhh the rest beating up on each other to go...

dukegirlinsc
11-09-2008, 09:48 PM
The winner of Florida-Alabama is a lock to make the final game unless Fla blows it to FSU and then beats Alabama.

What if South Carolina beats Florida? Hehhhh. :rolleyes: ;)

billybreen
11-15-2008, 10:24 PM
What if South Carolina beats Florida? Hehhhh. :rolleyes: ;)

So, that didn't quite happen. ;)

But someone explain to me how LSU is down 31-3 to Troy (Troy!?!?) right now.

billybreen
11-15-2008, 10:29 PM
Elsewhere, this has been a boring week for all things BCS. Alabama, despite trailing early to MSU, is set to coast to a win, and OkSt looks set to run away from Colorado. I guess we'll have to wait till next week for meaningful games.

YmoBeThere
11-15-2008, 10:36 PM
So, that didn't quite happen. ;)

But someone explain to me how LSU is down 31-3 to Troy (Troy!?!?) right now.


I guess they could use Achilles right now in the Louisiana.

billybreen
11-15-2008, 10:42 PM
I guess they could use Achilles right now in the Louisiana.

Excelsior!

I was always partial to Greater Ajax.

billybreen
11-15-2008, 10:51 PM
31-17 now, so we may have an exciting finish. Of course, no one is televising it. It's not even available on ESPN360.

Acymetric
11-15-2008, 11:22 PM
LSU just scored the go ahead touchdown to go up 33-31 with 4:50 left...then missed the extra point! I would pay to see this game, but its not on anywhere.

billybreen
11-15-2008, 11:47 PM
LSU just scored the go ahead touchdown to go up 33-31 with 4:50 left...then missed the extra point! I would pay to see this game, but its not on anywhere.

Final, 40-31. You know, a 30 point quarter can really turn a game around. :)

billybreen
11-15-2008, 11:53 PM
Not to get into PPB territory, but Obama addressed (tongue firmly in cheek) a major issue facing the nation (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27738481/) in an interview to be aired on 60 Minutes tomorrow, calling for an 8-team BCS playoff. "I'm going to throw my weight around. I think it’s the right thing to do," said the prez-elect. Awesome.

hc5duke
11-16-2008, 02:42 AM
Not to get into PPB territory, but Obama addressed (tongue firmly in cheek) a major issue facing the nation (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27738481/) in an interview to be aired on 60 Minutes tomorrow, calling for an 8-team BCS playoff. "I'm going to throw my weight around. I think itís the right thing to do," said the prez-elect. Awesome.

A change we can believe in!:D

rockymtn devil
11-16-2008, 01:16 PM
This doesn't really belong in the BCS thread, but it doesn't deserve its own thread either (and, let's be honest, this thread got off track the moment LSU was mentioned). But, did anyone happen to see that Oregon was wearing wings on their newly unveiled 47th jersey last night? The black helmets were kind of sharp, but the wings on the shoulders were a bit much.

billybreen
11-16-2008, 01:17 PM
This doesn't really belong in the BCS thread, but it doesn't deserve its own thread either (and, let's be honest, this thread got off track the moment LSU was mentioned).

Yeah, let's just call this the "Generic BCS Conference football thread."

A-Tex Devil
11-17-2008, 04:29 PM
This BCS thing is getting REALLY interesting.

Question 1: Should a team that does not win its conference championship (including tie breakers) be allowed to play for the title?

If your answer is "Yes," well OK. But if it is "No":

Question 2: Who, pray tell, should play for the title if the following occurs (a scenario which is not that unplausible):

1. The Big XII South champ (whoever it may be) loses to Mizzou in the Big XII Championship Game
2. Florida loses to Florida State in Tallahassee, then beats Alabama in the SEC Championship Game.
3. Oregon State wins out and is the PAC10 champion. (USC will claim "co-champion" but if you don't have a championship game, I won't call you a co-champ if you lose the tiebreaker. Not fair to conferences with c-ship games)
4. Penn State loses to Michigan State.
5. Utah loses to BYU in Provo.

Oh lordy. We could have a BCS championship game with ZERO conference champions. And if Mizzou upsets the apple cart in the Big XII, I bet we have at least one non-conference champion, because I think a one loss UT, OU and/or Texas Tech will be ahead of a one loss Penn State or USC, conference championship or not.

rockymtn devil
11-19-2008, 11:01 AM
This BCS thing is getting REALLY interesting.

Question 1: Should a team that does not win its conference championship (including tie breakers) be allowed to play for the title?

If your answer is "Yes," well OK. But if it is "No":

Question 2: Who, pray tell, should play for the title if the following occurs (a scenario which is not that unplausible):

1. The Big XII South champ (whoever it may be) loses to Mizzou in the Big XII Championship Game
2. Florida loses to Florida State in Tallahassee, then beats Alabama in the SEC Championship Game.
3. Oregon State wins out and is the PAC10 champion. (USC will claim "co-champion" but if you don't have a championship game, I won't call you a co-champ if you lose the tiebreaker. Not fair to conferences with c-ship games)
4. Penn State loses to Michigan State.
5. Utah loses to BYU in Provo.

Oh lordy. We could have a BCS championship game with ZERO conference champions. And if Mizzou upsets the apple cart in the Big XII, I bet we have at least one non-conference champion, because I think a one loss UT, OU and/or Texas Tech will be ahead of a one loss Penn State or USC, conference championship or not.

I'll take the bait...

My answer to this question 90% of the time will be "No". Take Georgia last season. They had no business in the BCS Title game. At best they were the 3rd best team in the SEC and therefore it was impossible for them to be one of the two best teams in the country. Nebraska in 2001? Same deal. At best they were the third best team in the B12 (behind Colorado and Texas). Thus, Oregon should've gone to play Miami in the Rose Bowl.

This season, however, has thrown a wrench in that train of thought. First, however, I'll say that your doomsday scenario, while possible, is unlikely. Florida, I think, wins out. If they stumble, it will be to Alabama, which will put the Tide in the title game. And, your co-champion/champion semantics doesn't hold a lot of water in my eyes. I'm not worried about fairness to conferences with title games. They dug that grave for nothing more than money and, as the saying goes, you reap what you sow. But, there is a very distinct possibility that a B12 South "co-champion" should get to the title game, despite not winning the conference title (or, in your eyes, the division title). In this scenario--where OU beats TT and Mizzou--you have a triangle of teams that have each proven themselves worthy of playing for the title. If that happens, I would have no problem with either Texas or TT going to the game. Likewise, OU would have a solid claim.

In ten years this is the first time this has happened, so I don't see it as a fatal flaw in the BCS (which has plenty of other fatal flaws). If it only happens once a decade, that's not terrible. Before we get all nostalgic for the good old days, let's remember that in 1994 Penn State went undefeated and didn't even get a chance to sniff the national title. And any talk of ending the BCS hit a snag this week when ESPN bought the rights to it through 2014. The only way anything changes is if the B10, P10 and Rose Bowl opt out of the BCS when its contract expires (2010, I think).

davekay1971
11-19-2008, 11:08 AM
No matter how you slice it, the idea of a college football consensus national champion will be a joke until a playoff system is in place. If you bring the top 8 or 16 teams into a single elimination tournament, you'll get a real champion. Right now we're stuck with the bias of preseason rankings, vague comparisons of conference strength, early losses counting less than late ones (ie: USC loses to Oregon or Oregon State or whoever, but will be ranked higher than a 1 loss Texas Tech if TT loses to a very good Oklahoma team...how does that make sense?), etc. Once a playoff gets in place, we'll have a legit football national champion, and all previous national champion claims will count about as much as Carolina's 1924 Helms Award.

Acymetric
11-19-2008, 11:17 AM
For comparison, if basketball worked the way football does, last years champion would have been between Carolina and UCLA, or possibly Memphis. Thank goodness we actually have a good system for playing things out.

People talk about how much the regular season means in college football, but it means nothing! The number of games is too small for any meaningful analysis. One loss means way more than it should, particularly if its to a good team. If you're ranked 15, and lose to a team ranked in the top 5, shouldn't you still be ranked close to 15? After all, if the rankings were correct you shouldn't have won anyway, so why are they punished? The BCS is a joke, and I'm seriously considering not watching the games, no matter how great or epic they are supposed to be.

rockymtn devil
11-19-2008, 11:29 AM
No matter how you slice it, the idea of a college football consensus national champion will be a joke until a playoff system is in place. If you bring the top 8 or 16 teams into a single elimination tournament, you'll get a real champion. Right now we're stuck with the bias of preseason rankings, vague comparisons of conference strength, early losses counting less than late ones (ie: USC loses to Oregon or Oregon State or whoever, but will be ranked higher than a 1 loss Texas Tech if TT loses to a very good Oklahoma team...how does that make sense?), etc. Once a playoff gets in place, we'll have a legit football national champion, and all previous national champion claims will count about as much as Carolina's 1924 Helms Award.

I'm not here to defend the BCS, and would be love to see a playoff. But, as someone who grew up in Columbus, I recognize that the BCS is an upgrade from the Bowl Alliance/Coalition.

Something that needs to be remembered, however, is that the idea of a "consensus national champion" in 1-A football is very new. Before widespread TV coverage and 24-7 access to talking heads via the internet, no one cared about a "consensus national champion". The NCAA has never awarded a national title in 1-A college football, but that doesn't invalidate every previous national champion. And the preseason rankings bias is a lot less than people think. I posted a few months back a look at every BCS title game and pointed out that, more often that not, at least one team from outside the preseason top 10 made it into the title game. This year neither of the AP's preseason 1 and 2s will get a shot at the title.

And I think your assumption that TT would drop below USC if they were to lose to OU is wrong. OU and Texas both stayed above the Trojans after their losses.

Most importantly, a playoff isn't coming anytime soon. We didn't get any closer to a playoff in 2001, 2004, or 2007. What makes us think this season will be any different?

A-Tex Devil
11-19-2008, 01:06 PM
Before widespread TV coverage and 24-7 access to talking heads via the internet, no one cared about a "consensus national champion".

This is such a key point. There used to be 5 conferences with bowl tie ins and that was the biggest goal of these teams each year -- to win their conference and get to that bowl, whether it was the Rose, Sugar, Cotton, or Orange. It wasn't the national championship. The ACC and independents (which included PSU, Fla State, Notre Dame, Miami, and most of the Big East powers) would occasionally make one of those 4 bowls (then the ACC had the Citrus Bowl - from which GaTech one a co-national title).

Admittedly, I am a bit nostaglic for the old days with the locked in bowl tie ins. Without a playoff, I'd almost prefer it so that you have more than one game on New Year's day with national title implications. This year (assuming higher ranked BCS teams win out, except let's say Florida beats Bama to make it more exciting) you could have:

Florida-Texas in Sugar Bowl
USC-Penn State in Rose Bowl (I am also assuming Oreg St. loses one more)
ACC Champ v. Big East Champ in Orange Bowl (ugh)
Texas Tech-'Bama in Fiesta Bowl

Utah would even get OU in the Cotton Bowl, and with an impressive win, might be in the picture.

Each one of those games, potentially, has an effect on the national championship, and sure the eventual champion could be controversial if Tech can't beat 'Bama, but doesn't this make for a great set of games? I would absolutely LOVE this.

Instead, we are going to get something like this:

USC-Penn State in Rose (same, OK, but with neither team having a shot at anything, where there is potential hope in other scenario)
ACC Champ v. Big East Champ in Orange Bowl (again, ugh)
Texas-Utah in Fiesta (bleh)
'Bama-tOSU in Sugar (who wants to watch this?)

And then Tech and Florida in the championship game.

rockymtn devil
11-19-2008, 01:30 PM
This is such a key point. There used to be 5 conferences with bowl tie ins and that was the biggest goal of these teams each year -- to win their conference and get to that bowl, whether it was the Rose, Sugar, Cotton, or Orange. It wasn't the national championship. The ACC and independents (which included PSU, Fla State, Notre Dame, Miami, and most of the Big East powers) would occasionally make one of those 4 bowls (then the ACC had the Citrus Bowl - from which GaTech one a co-national title).

Exactly. To be honest, growing up, it was all about Ohio State going to the Rose Bowl (and, as crazy as it sounds, OSU has only been there once in my football watching life). It wasn't until we saw 1994 PSU get completely shut out of title discussion that people in B10 country second guessed the desire to go to Pasadena.

Not sure what the selection order is this year, but I'd be surprised if the Fiesta took Utah over Ohio State. In this economy, the bowls are terrified of weak turnout. For all their faults, Buckeye fans travel. Assuming Oregon State loses somewhere (long shot, IMO), I expect Texas-Ohio State in the Fiesta. If the Beavers win out, Ohio State probably goes to the Capital One Bowl to play someone like Georgia. That leaves Utah, Alabama, Texas, and USC as the at large teams.

Acymetric
11-22-2008, 09:51 PM
Holy crap, anyone watching the Texas Tech - Oklahoma game? I can't believe this!

wilson
11-22-2008, 11:32 PM
I mean...damn.

wilson
11-22-2008, 11:35 PM
I suppose this makes Bradford the overwhelming Heisman favorite. He could still possibly lose it by laying an egg vs. Mizzou in Kansas City if Tebow were to put up impressive numbers vs. FSU and Alabama, but I think that scenario highly unlikely.
This game also makes a complete mess of the BCS. What to do now?

Acymetric
11-22-2008, 11:38 PM
I only watched the first half, but I've followed the score in the second half. I did not see this coming, what a ridiculous win. If Florida beats Alabama in the SEC championship, Oklahoma v. Florida for the BCS championship. It'll be interesting to see how BCS standings turn out this week. I'm also curious how ACC teams will be ranked in the polls since I'm pretty sure all the ranked teams lost. What a season.

billybreen
11-23-2008, 12:00 AM
Holy crap, anyone watching the Texas Tech - Oklahoma game? I can't believe this!

Yep, that was a pasting. Now the Big-12 is a complete mess.

ugadevil
11-23-2008, 12:02 AM
Oklahoma still has a big game next week in Stillwater, OK. The Sooners will be favored but that is an intense rivalry and Oklahoma State is a good football team. Still plenty of chaos that could occur!

Acymetric
11-23-2008, 12:09 AM
Yep, that was a pasting. Now the Big-12 is a complete mess.

Heck, I'd say the whole country is a complete mess!

Football wise I mean. Not trying to make any political commentary...

billybreen
11-23-2008, 12:13 AM
Heck, I'd say the whole country is a complete mess!

Football wise I mean. Not trying to make any political commentary...

As long as the winner of the Big 12 championship plays the winner of the SEC, everything will be right with the world (assuming that is Florida||Alabama vs Texas||Texas Tech||Oklahoma).

My preference would be Texas vs Alabama, but we'll see.

throatybeard
11-23-2008, 12:24 AM
I find the OU-TTU result shocking. Shocking!

Not to mention FSU-MD.

Not to mention State-Carolina.

Not to mention Ole Mess-LSU.

Well I'm watching UC-Pitt on dvr...to see Erin. Life is good.

Acymetric
11-23-2008, 12:29 AM
As long as the winner of the Big 12 championship plays the winner of the SEC, everything will be right with the world (assuming that is Florida||Alabama vs Texas||Texas Tech||Oklahoma).

My preference would be Texas vs Alabama, but we'll see.

I'm terrified of who the ACC champion could end up playing in the Orange Bowl. Whoever it is, the ACC champ is going to get creamed, I think...

billybreen
11-23-2008, 12:33 AM
I'm terrified of who the ACC champion could end up playing in the Orange Bowl. Whoever it is, the ACC champ is going to get creamed, I think...

Yep, it's a crap football conference.

Wander
11-23-2008, 08:52 AM
If Alabama doesn't win out and there are no Big 12 upsets, I still support a Texas/Oklahoma rematch in the national title game.

CDu
11-23-2008, 11:03 AM
No matter how you slice it, the idea of a college football consensus national champion will be a joke until a playoff system is in place. If you bring the top 8 or 16 teams into a single elimination tournament, you'll get a real champion. Right now we're stuck with the bias of preseason rankings, vague comparisons of conference strength, early losses counting less than late ones (ie: USC loses to Oregon or Oregon State or whoever, but will be ranked higher than a 1 loss Texas Tech if TT loses to a very good Oklahoma team...how does that make sense?), etc. Once a playoff gets in place, we'll have a legit football national champion, and all previous national champion claims will count about as much as Carolina's 1924 Helms Award.

Why do you think a playoff will crown a "real champion?" All that does is make the regular season largely irrelevant and bring more undeserving teams a chance at being #1. Do you really think that Villanova was the best team when they won it? Or that GMU was really one of the four best teams in their great year? That LSU was better than Duke that year, or that West Virginia was better last year?

I guess it all depends on what you define as a champion. If you're looking to crown the best team in a given year, then a playoff will most certainly not crown a real champion. It will crown a team that is hottest and luckiest at the end of the season.

As it is now, we have an 11- or 12-game "playoff" over the course of the season to determine which two teams are the most deserving over the course of the season. The BCS helps determine which two teams are best. Then those two teams play for the title. Introducing a playoff just gives more 2- and 3- loss teams a chance at the title, which is silly to me. I mean, do we really need to see TCU have a shot to win it? Or Georgia, Ok St, or Missouri?

Playoffs are fun. They are great for making money and stirring interest and giving a bunch of teams a chance at the end. But they don't do any better job of determining a "true" champion than the BCS does.

BlueintheFace
11-23-2008, 11:10 AM
OU- Florida coming up...

A-Tex Devil
11-23-2008, 11:17 AM
I just hope that everyone that watched last night's game remembers that UT dropped 45 points on that defense. :).

Seriously, though, the only thing that was good about that game for Texas was Tech losing. But the blowout is bad. Unless, of course, people completely dismiss Tech now and look a the UT-OU head to head as a barometer. That's not fair to Tech who beat UT fair and square (holding by their offensive line on EVERY SINGLE PLAY aside), but they should have at least shown up for their road game.

Wander
11-23-2008, 12:08 PM
Thanks, CDu. I've been waiting for someone to defend the BCS so I can have an excuse to list some of my 200 reasons why it's a completely idiotic and corrupt system.


Do you really think that Villanova was the best team when they won it? Or that GMU was really one of the four best teams in their great year? That LSU was better than Duke that year, or that West Virginia was better last year?


Villanova is an exception. George Mason, LSU, and West Virginia didn't win the championship in those years: they only exposed teams that weren't worthy of winning the championship. With a BCS style system, we would have never known that Florida was the best team in 2006. Reason #46: a playoff would for the most part expose the Ohio States of the world and prevent them from playing in the title game.



I guess it all depends on what you define as a champion. If you're looking to crown the best team in a given year, then a playoff will most certainly not crown a real champion. It will crown a team that is hottest and luckiest at the end of the season.


Reason #94: the BCS is MORE prone to flukes than the NCAA tournament, not less. In fact, college football is probably the sport that is the most prone to flukes in existence, because it gives an absurdly low amount of teams (two) the chance to play for a title. Example: two years ago, a single Louisville player jumped offsides on a field goal attempt by Rutgers. As a result, Florida won the national championship. Huh? That's as flukey as flukes can possibly get, and the thing is, unlike Villanova in 1985, these kinds of things happen EVERY YEAR. With a playoff system, Florida would get a chance to win the national title regardless of whether that Louisville player jumped.




As it is now, we have an 11- or 12-game "playoff" over the course of the season to determine which two teams are the most deserving over the course of the season. The BCS helps determine which two teams are best. Then those two teams play for the title.


Reason #187: College football's regular season is not a playoff, as some like to claim. It's not even a "playoff" with quotes. Tell that to the undefeated Auburn, Boise State, or Utah teams we've seen the past few years. Tell that to LSU who had two losses but still got to play for the title because, well, Ohio State needed an opponent. Speaking of Ohio State... well, let's just say that they pretty clearly were not deserving of playing in the title game, but because of the idiotic system, we had to put them there.



Introducing a playoff just gives more 2- and 3- loss teams a chance at the title, which is silly to me. I mean, do we really need to see TCU have a shot to win it? Or Georgia, Ok St, or Missouri?


Who's talking about Georgia, OK St, TCU, or Missouri getting a shot? Reason #192: no one's asking for a basketball NCAA tournament equivalent. But those who defend the BCS don't have any legitimate arguments, so they have to resort to doing things like attacking March Madness.

In my opinion, the best system would involve the 11 conference champions plus 3 at larges chosen by a committee, with the first and second round games being played at the higher seed's field. This would make the regular season very important because a) most teams would still need to win their conference to get in, b) being one of the top two seeds would be a HUGE advantage to get a bye week, and c) getting a high seed would be a HUGE advantage for the home field. This year, the three at-larges would be chosen among: Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Florida, Alabama, and Texas Tech. None of the teams you mentioned.



Playoffs are fun.


And more importantly, they are fair. That's Reason #1.



But they don't do any better job of determining a "true" champion than the BCS does.

Yes they do. By about five million times.

ArnieMc
11-23-2008, 06:07 PM
Kirk Herbstreit made one of the most insightful remarks I've ever heard during the game. He said: "That could've been a touchdown if he had caught the ball and gotten into the end zone." [Sigh] Still, that's better than Dick Vitale.

CDu
11-23-2008, 07:24 PM
Thanks, CDu. I've been waiting for someone to defend the BCS so I can have an excuse to list some of my 200 reasons why it's a completely idiotic and corrupt system.

It's not corrupt. You just don't like it. There's a difference.


Villanova is an exception. George Mason, LSU, and West Virginia didn't win the championship in those years: they only exposed teams that weren't worthy of winning the championship. With a BCS style system, we would have never known that Florida was the best team in 2006. Reason #46: a playoff would for the most part expose the Ohio States of the world and prevent them from playing in the title game.

That's just it. Florida WASN'T the best team. They just happened to be the last team standing. By allowing the tournament, you eliminated all of the best teams over the course of the season (which is why I mentioned those others, as they knocked off #1 and #2 seeds early). This is a CLASSIC example of the tournament fallacy: you've labeled UF the best team in 2006 after the fact simply because they happened to get hot at the right time. They were not the best team over the course of the season. They were the hottest team at the end of the season, and benefited by having some of the other #1s get bounced early by inferior teams.


Reason #94: the BCS is MORE prone to flukes than the NCAA tournament, not less. In fact, college football is probably the sport that is the most prone to flukes in existence, because it gives an absurdly low amount of teams (two) the chance to play for a title. Example: two years ago, a single Louisville player jumped offsides on a field goal attempt by Rutgers. As a result, Florida won the national championship. Huh? That's as flukey as flukes can possibly get, and the thing is, unlike Villanova in 1985, these kinds of things happen EVERY YEAR. With a playoff system, Florida would get a chance to win the national title regardless of whether that Louisville player jumped.

The BCS is NOT more prone to flukes, because any system in which a series of one-game eliminations determines the champion is inherently the most prone to flukes. You are giving undeserving teams a chance to win a title with a tournament. The BCS eliminates that. Note how frequently the basketball championship is not won by a #1 seed. I should rest my case there, but you keep going so I feel inclined to do so as well.


Reason #187: College football's regular season is not a playoff, as some like to claim. It's not even a "playoff" with quotes. Tell that to the undefeated Auburn, Boise State, or Utah teams we've seen the past few years. Tell that to LSU who had two losses but still got to play for the title because, well, Ohio State needed an opponent. Speaking of Ohio State... well, let's just say that they pretty clearly were not deserving of playing in the title game, but because of the idiotic system, we had to put them there.

No, it's not a true playoff, nor should it be. That's why the BCS is useful - it gives a measure of schedule quality and field performance in picking the two best teams over the course of the season given limited head-to-head information. And as for your complaints about LSU/Ohio State, I don't see what you're getting at. Under ANY reasonable format (including the format you later suggest), Ohio State and LSU would be in the tournament. And they'd just as likely have ended up in the title game. LSU had two losses in overtime on the road, but played the toughest schedule in football and were widely considered the best team in football. A tournament wouldn't have kept either of those teams from winning it. All it would have done would be to have given even WORSE teams a chance of winning it.


Who's talking about Georgia, OK St, TCU, or Missouri getting a shot? Reason #192: no one's asking for a basketball NCAA tournament equivalent. But those who defend the BCS don't have any legitimate arguments, so they have to resort to doing things like attacking March Madness.

Those are some of the top 16 teams, which was the tourney style suggested by the previous poster. A 16-team tournament means those frauds have a chance at the title. And I gave legitimate arguments (and continue to do so), one of which is that March Madness is not the best way of determining the best team over the course of the season (which is what I want my champion to be).


In my opinion, the best system would involve the 11 conference champions plus 3 at larges chosen by a committee, with the first and second round games being played at the higher seed's field. This would make the regular season very important because a) most teams would still need to win their conference to get in, b) being one of the top two seeds would be a HUGE advantage to get a bye week, and c) getting a high seed would be a HUGE advantage for the home field. This year, the three at-larges would be chosen among: Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Florida, Alabama, and Texas Tech. None of the teams you mentioned.

The best system would be a round robin home-and-home (like the Premier League and other soccer leagues). That determines the champion. You can have fun tournaments as well if you want, but that'd be the best system. Unfortunately, that's not possible. So we make due with what we can do. Your playoff system is an alternative, as is the BCS. The difference is that your system introduces more chance that the best team won't win (more risk of losing early), while the BCS introduces speculation about whether or not we've identified the best.


And more importantly, they are fair. That's Reason #1.

Yes, tournaments are certainly fair. I never disagreed with that. But they don't determine the best team over the course of the season. They simply determine the hottest (and/or luckiest) team at the end of the season. If that's what you want, fine. But just understand that that's what you're getting with a tournament. The BCS is fair, too - you just don't like it, so you deem it unfair.


Yes they do. By about five million times.

Nothing you've said above gives any proof of that. A playoff greatly increases the likelihood that the best team will lose early by introducing MORE single elimination games. The BCS assures that one of the top two (or top three or four, depending upon how much you trust the computers) will win. That's clearly a better route to determining a champion, in my opinion.

A-Tex Devil
11-23-2008, 07:54 PM
Texas is No. 2 but hanging by a thread. It's gonna probably take some human voters switching their vote for Texas over OU for Texas to hang on, I think. Too bad next week's votes aren't public.

I still stand by the neutral field win vs. home wins in the Tech-OU-Texas round robin. That's really the only objective look at it I think one can give. Of course who knows if I was on the other side of it. I won't fall into the trap of saying Tech got beat so bad we shouldn't consider them, so look at the OU-UT head to head. That's not fair to OU. Someone will get screwed by an arbitrary process BEFORE the BCS is even decided a week from today and that's too bad. Selflishly I wish that the BIG XII had the "record of conference opponents" tiebreaker that others do. Texas wins that one over Tech and OU.

pamtar
11-23-2008, 08:44 PM
Saw this (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2008-11-18-espn-bcs_N.htm) and didn't feel like wasting a thread. Pretty interesting stuff that at least my uninformed posterior was unaware of.

Acymetric
11-23-2008, 08:48 PM
Saw this (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2008-11-18-espn-bcs_N.htm) and didn't feel like wasting a thread. Pretty interesting stuff that at least my uninformed posterior was unaware of.

So is it for sure that the bowl games would be broadcast on ESPN, and not ABC? They would certainly have the option to broadcast on ABC, I would think. I haven't read anything that said one way or the other, but everyone seems to assume it will be on the actual ESPN channel. Anyone know for sure if thats the case?

ryan
11-23-2008, 09:47 PM
I suppose this makes Bradford the overwhelming Heisman favorite. He could still possibly lose it by laying an egg vs. Mizzou in Kansas City if Tebow were to put up impressive numbers vs. FSU and Alabama, but I think that scenario highly unlikely.
This game also makes a complete mess of the BCS. What to do now?

Anything that makes a mess of the BCS is wonderful in my book. How anyone can say that Florida deserves a shot for the title, but OK, USC, or Texas don't makes no sense. That and the fact that college football is the only sport in the world where you can win all your games including your final game and still end up a loser.

Boycott college football until the championship is decided on the field and not by a computer.

dukegirlinsc
11-23-2008, 09:58 PM
I freakin' cannot WAIT until Florida and Alabama play each other. I hope it's a good game, at least.

Exiled_Devil
11-23-2008, 11:20 PM
Texas is No. 2 but hanging by a thread. It's gonna probably take some human voters switching their vote for Texas over OU for Texas to hang on, I think. Too bad next week's votes aren't public.


Sorry to use you, A-Tex, but this statement is one of the solid reasons that Cdu's defense of the BCS as a fair system to determine the 'best' team is misguided.

Too much of the BCS relies on the opinions. The SEC is up, the ACC is down, the Big Ten is not as good as this or that...all opinions if teams don't play one another. Possibly well articulated and substantiated, but just opinions no less. And sport is not about opinion. Sport is about who wins on the field.

This idea that a champion of the end-of-season tournament is not the best team of the year is a red herring. What do yo mean by 'best'? What is a national champion? Champions aren't voted in, they victors. And victory over more teams, when each game determines if you even play again, is more of a challenge than just playing well over a few months. If the 'best' team of the season can't survive that, they weren't really the best team.

The BCS is an artifact of the pre-national television era of college sports. It's time is past. A playoff would bring NCAA football into the 21st century.

Exiled_Devil
11-23-2008, 11:27 PM
This is the first article (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=roadtobcs/0806) I saw about the BCS tonight, and it points out to the convoluted way the process creates a system that hurts good teams.

CDu
11-24-2008, 09:11 AM
Sorry to use you, A-Tex, but this statement is one of the solid reasons that Cdu's defense of the BCS as a fair system to determine the 'best' team is misguided.

Too much of the BCS relies on the opinions. The SEC is up, the ACC is down, the Big Ten is not as good as this or that...all opinions if teams don't play one another. Possibly well articulated and substantiated, but just opinions no less. And sport is not about opinion. Sport is about who wins on the field.

This idea that a champion of the end-of-season tournament is not the best team of the year is a red herring. What do yo mean by 'best'? What is a national champion? Champions aren't voted in, they victors. And victory over more teams, when each game determines if you even play again, is more of a challenge than just playing well over a few months. If the 'best' team of the season can't survive that, they weren't really the best team.

The BCS is an artifact of the pre-national television era of college sports. It's time is past. A playoff would bring NCAA football into the 21st century.

Why exactly is it more of a challenge? It just allows more chance of random variation to determine the champion, resulting in things like Villanova winning it all.

My opinion is no more misguided than yours, Exiled_Devil. Again, it all comes back to how you define a champion. Clearly, we define it differently. I think tournaments are fun, and it is certainly an accomplishment to win one. But they don't define the best team over the course of the season, which is how I define a champion.

CDu
11-24-2008, 09:21 AM
This is the first article (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=roadtobcs/0806) I saw about the BCS tonight, and it points out to the convoluted way the process creates a system that hurts good teams.

Firstly, that's not convoluted. In the incredibly rare situation in which a three-way tie occurs, the BCS picks the two best teams (most likely Texas and Oklahoma). And if Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma St, they'd have two losses and don't deserve to be in ahead of one-loss Texas and Texas Tech. If you're talking about the voters, then I agree. I'd be okay with taking them completely out of the system and let the computers determine it if you're concerned with voters being corrupt.

Also, how would it be any more fair to include teams like Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma St, etc (i.e., top 16 teams) in a tournament more fair to the top teams and give those guys a chance to back in to a title?

The reality is that neither system is perfect. The BCS has holes in that it relies on computers and voters to determine who the best two teams are. The playoff system has holes in that it allows undeserving teams a chance to win it in a one-and-done format. I just prefer the system that weights the regular season more, as it is more challenging to play well over 3-4 months than it is to play 3-4 games at the very end.

I think people have been biased by growing up in the presence of a system in which we've given praise to the playoffs, so they automatically are predisposed to think that playoffs are a correct way of determining the best team. That's not really the case. They're fun, and they're a proxy for determining the best team, but they don't really do that.

JasonEvans
11-24-2008, 09:29 AM
Here is a question--

A 16 team playoff is ludicrous. That is simply too many teams and too many extra games for football. Even the NFL does not have that many teams in the playoffs.

So, if we are going with an 8 team playoff scenario, would you automatically include any undefeated team? Would Boise St, Utah, and Ball State all get spots in the 8 team field? If you did this, it would mean leaving out some stud team like Texas Tech or USC or the loser of Fla-Alabama. But how can you tell an undefeated team that they do not qualify for an 8-team playoff?!!?

I think we can also agree that if there was an 8 or even a 4 team playoff that some conferences would realize that it is bad to have a conference championship game. If we had a 4 team playoff, you can bet that Alabama and Florida would be furious that they have to play each other and that one of them gets booted from the national title chase as a result. If we had an 8 team playoff there would be plenty of conferences that would get 2 or maybe even 3 teams in there if they did not have a conference championship game.

--Jason "chaos could reign-- even if we had a playoff" Evans

A-Tex Devil
11-24-2008, 12:24 PM
I think there is a strong possibility that the Mountain West could get added to the BCS mix in the next 5 years, and I think that would solve a lot of problems, especially if Boise State and Fresno St., who I understand are already angling to get into that conference, get in. At that point you'd have Utah, BYU, Boise St. and TCU, which have all been in the top 12 of one poll or another at some point this year. You'd also have an always competitive Air Force. Then the recruiting boost you get there helps the other schools. That's not a bad conference, and this year, it's better than the Big East. (I won't say ACC, because the ACC has proven to have a lot of pretty good teams, just no great ones).

Add the Jerry World Cotton Bowl as a 6th BCS bowl and eliminate the "no more than 2 teams rule," and just keep the current system as is (since we aren't getting a playoff anytime soon).

As for the 8 team playoff -- I think it could work. And I have far less of a problem keeping out a 9th rank team over, say UT or OU this year. One of the real problems with a football playoff is getting 75K or more fans in the seats 3 weeks in a row and the travel expenses it creates on the fanbases. I know this is what happens in March, but the final four is 75% corporate, coaches and locals. Do we want that for bowl games? Some people don't think this will be a problem, but I think it could be tough trekking from Miami to New Orleans to Pasadena over the course of 3 weekends for Joe Tailgate.

Swithing topics, this year's 8 team playoff (if season ended now) is easy -- and my rule is conference champions don't get in automatically.

Alabama v. Texas Tech
Texas v. Utah
Oklahoma v. Penn State
Florida v. USC

There, easy. Boise St. and Ball St. get screwed (right now), but this is the BCS we are talking about, not the NCAA, and non-BCS conference schools getting in is a privilege, not a right. Still - let everything play out, and I bet an 8 team playoff shakes out alright.

hughgs
11-24-2008, 12:54 PM
Here is a question--

A 16 team playoff is ludicrous. That is simply too many teams and too many extra games for football. Even the NFL does not have that many teams in the playoffs.

So, if we are going with an 8 team playoff scenario, would you automatically include any undefeated team? Would Boise St, Utah, and Ball State all get spots in the 8 team field? If you did this, it would mean leaving out some stud team like Texas Tech or USC or the loser of Fla-Alabama. But how can you tell an undefeated team that they do not qualify for an 8-team playoff?!!?

I think we can also agree that if there was an 8 or even a 4 team playoff that some conferences would realize that it is bad to have a conference championship game. If we had a 4 team playoff, you can bet that Alabama and Florida would be furious that they have to play each other and that one of them gets booted from the national title chase as a result. If we had an 8 team playoff there would be plenty of conferences that would get 2 or maybe even 3 teams in there if they did not have a conference championship game.

--Jason "chaos could reign-- even if we had a playoff" Evans

Why is 16 teams "ludicrous"? I-AA has 16 teams in their playoffs. And the comparison with the NFL is liking comparing apples to oranges. The NFL season is completely different than the I-A season and shouldn't affect the size and form of determining the I-A champion.

A-Tex Devil
11-24-2008, 01:16 PM
Why is 16 teams "ludicrous"? I-AA has 16 teams in their playoffs. And the comparison with the NFL is liking comparing apples to oranges. The NFL season is completely different than the I-A season and shouldn't affect the size and form of determining the I-A champion.

I think 16 teams only works if the first round (or even first 2 rounds) were played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. That will create a lot of noise in the 8-9, 7-10 matchup because home field will be decided in an arbitrary manner and home field (as we saw Saturday night and on November 1st in Lubbock) means more in college football than any other sport (IMHO). But 4 weeks of travel to neutral sites in a row would be a logistical nightmare.

A-Tex Devil
11-24-2008, 01:37 PM
A UT website put together a detailed "fact analysis" of the BCS. It's UT-centric, but after re-reading the below scenario, and considering a Florida win over Alabama would just move UF and UT up one notch each in most people's polls (thus not distancing Florida further from UT), I think there is a distinct possibility of the below happening:

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2008/11/24/668628/numbers-game-bcs-analysis


"Fact 9 is Something I Recently Realized But I'm Scared of Publicizing: Florida is doing so terribly in the computers that it's possible (though not probable) that a 1-loss SEC champion Florida might be ranked behind non-division champ Texas in the BCS. If Florida and Oklahoma both with their conference championships, they will split the #1 human vote while Texas will be a near-unanimous #3. That means that even if Florida is ranked #1, they will be a weak #1. Florida will undoubtedly move up in the computers with wins over FSU and Bama, but look how far behind they are right now. Not only are they 6th in the computers, they're a WEAK 6th. Can they make that distance up? I don't think so. They'd have to bank on being a near-unanimous #1 over Oklahoma in the human polls, and I'm not sure that would be the case. We've all assumed that the winner of the SEC championship would be in Miami (and if it's Bama, I think that's still true, even with a loss to Auburn), but Florida is currently 4th in the BCS and two teams ahead of them (Texas and OU) might not lose the rest of the way. Something to think about."

JasonEvans
11-24-2008, 01:51 PM
I think there is a strong possibility that the Mountain West could get added to the BCS mix in the next 5 years, and I think that would solve a lot of problems, especially if Boise State and Fresno St., who I understand are already angling to get into that conference, get in. At that point you'd have Utah, BYU, Boise St. and TCU, which have all been in the top 12 of one poll or another at some point this year. You'd also have an always competitive Air Force. Then the recruiting boost you get there helps the other schools. That's not a bad conference, and this year, it's better than the Big East. (I won't say ACC, because the ACC has proven to have a lot of pretty good teams, just no great ones).

Add the Jerry World Cotton Bowl as a 6th BCS bowl and eliminate the "no more than 2 teams rule," and just keep the current system as is (since we aren't getting a playoff anytime soon).

As for the 8 team playoff -- I think it could work. And I have far less of a problem keeping out a 9th rank team over, say UT or OU this year. One of the real problems with a football playoff is getting 75K or more fans in the seats 3 weeks in a row and the travel expenses it creates on the fanbases. I know this is what happens in March, but the final four is 75% corporate, coaches and locals. Do we want that for bowl games? Some people don't think this will be a problem, but I think it could be tough trekking from Miami to New Orleans to Pasadena over the course of 3 weekends for Joe Tailgate.


2 comments--

1) There will be no changes to the BCS in terms of bowls that are a part of it any time in the near future. ESPN just signed their deal for the BCS bowl broadcast rights. To add another bowl to that you would have to tear up the ESPN deal and write a new one. That is a lot more trouble than it is worth just to add a conference (Mountain West) that does not represent any population centers or meaningful TV ratings points.

2) The easy solution to the travel problems would be home games. For the first round of playoff games in the 8-team playoff, the top 4 seeds each get to play at home. There might be some grousing from the #5 team about playing at the #4 team but I think that would be fairly negligible. The Final Four and championship games could be at Bowl sites but the first round are home games.

--Jason "imagine the demand for tickets for that Florida-USC game!!!" Evans

JasonEvans
11-24-2008, 01:55 PM
A UT website put together a detailed "fact analysis" of the BCS. It's UT-centric, but after re-reading the below scenario, and considering a Florida win over Alabama would just move UF and UT up one notch each in most people's polls (thus not distancing Florida further from UT), I think there is a distinct possibility of the below happening:

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2008/11/24/668628/numbers-game-bcs-analysis


"Fact 9 is Something I Recently Realized But I'm Scared of Publicizing: Florida is doing so terribly in the computers that it's possible (though not probable) that a 1-loss SEC champion Florida might be ranked behind non-division champ Texas in the BCS. If Florida and Oklahoma both with their conference championships, they will split the #1 human vote while Texas will be a near-unanimous #3. That means that even if Florida is ranked #1, they will be a weak #1. Florida will undoubtedly move up in the computers with wins over FSU and Bama, but look how far behind they are right now. Not only are they 6th in the computers, they're a WEAK 6th. Can they make that distance up? I don't think so. They'd have to bank on being a near-unanimous #1 over Oklahoma in the human polls, and I'm not sure that would be the case. We've all assumed that the winner of the SEC championship would be in Miami (and if it's Bama, I think that's still true, even with a loss to Auburn), but Florida is currently 4th in the BCS and two teams ahead of them (Texas and OU) might not lose the rest of the way. Something to think about."

I am now officially rooting for this to happen because it would be BCS chaos on a level not previously seen, in my opinion. Florida could be the #1 team in one of the polls and not play for the national title. This is the greatest BCS chaos scenario EVER!!

--Jason "BCS Chaos-- ya gotta love it!" Evans

JimBD
11-24-2008, 02:34 PM
The BCS system is not working. The BCS top ranked team has changed numerous times this year and the #2 BCS ranked team was just blown out by Oklahoma. If the BCS rankings have been so wrong throughout the year, what makes anyone think they will be reliable at the end of the year? The polls are primarily a popularity contest, based on reputation of the teams and bias of the voters. Most of the voters know very little about most of the teams they are voting for. Even the "strength of schedule" component is a farce because most teams play primarily teams within their own conference and deciding which conferences are the strongest is very subjective. In recent years, teams in the Big Ten have been highly ranked in the BCS, then been blown out when they played a Pac 10 or SEC school in a bowl game. If Florida beats Alabama, there will be numerous one-loss teams, all of which will think they should be in the BCS National Championship game. How do you pick just two? How do you leave out undefeated schools from a non BCS conference? Those schools have no chance to win a national championship, no matter how good they might be. What if in basketball we only picked two teams with a chance to win a national championship, rather than 64-65? There is already a playoff system in other divisions of college football. It's ridiculous that there's not one in Division I-A. The national championship needs to be decided on the field, not by the polls/computer. I'm obviously wasting my time because the NCAA is far more interested in the money/current system of bowl games than the integrity of the sport.

hughgs
11-24-2008, 02:35 PM
I think 16 teams only works if the first round (or even first 2 rounds) were played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. That will create a lot of noise in the 8-9, 7-10 matchup because home field will be decided in an arbitrary manner and home field (as we saw Saturday night and on November 1st in Lubbock) means more in college football than any other sport (IMHO). But 4 weeks of travel to neutral sites in a row would be a logistical nightmare.

I agree that there would logistical issues no matter how many teams you put in the playoffs, but either way it certainly isn't ludicrous. And no matter how many teams you include the middle teams are always going to have a hard road.

I think the general problem is that no bowl wants to give up it's independence. I would think that the most logical idea for a play-off would be to simply expand the number of bowls that are rotated for a championship. But then the number of times each bowl was able to get the big money for hosting the championship game would increase. And the bowl committees aren't willing to go down that route. The same thing could probably be said for the colleges.

MulletMan
11-24-2008, 02:56 PM
I am now officially rooting for this to happen because it would be BCS chaos on a level not previously seen, in my opinion. Florida could be the #1 team in one of the polls and not play for the national title. This is the greatest BCS chaos scenario EVER!!

--Jason "BCS Chaos-- ya gotta love it!" Evans

Ummm you mean not previously seen since the previous time that it previously happened when #1 USC stayed at home only to watch #2 Oklahoma play #3 LSU in the BCS national title game... right?

From the BCS guru:

The epic Miami-Ohio State showdown in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, even with the attendant controversy at the end of the game, gave the BCS a huge sigh of relief. "The system works!" went the battle cry.

No, it doesn't. And it most certainly didn't in the 2003 season, when the BCS was met with catastrophe -- the very scenario that the system was created to avoid: A split national championship.

In its first five years of existence, while there were disagreements and debates about certain teams' merits to be included in the championship game, there had never been a case where the BCS champion was deemed unworthy, or not been crowned by the Associated Press, which maintained its independence.

But in 2003, it all happened. Going into the final weekend of the season, three teams were vying for two spots in the Sugar Bowl. USC had one loss -- at Cal in triple overtime, 34-31. As did LSU -- to Florida at home, 19-7. No. 1 Oklahoma was undefeated going into the Big XII title game against Kansas State.

Even before the games were played on that final Saturday, word was that the Sooners would stay No. 1, even if they lost the game. (Keep in mind that the Guru wasn't in business back then, or you'd known that as certainty.) The computers favored Oklahoma by a wide margin, and, since all other teams besides USC and LSU had at least two losses, Oklahoma would not drop to lower than No. 3 in the human polls. Put it together, the Big XII title game was a mere exhibition with very little riding on it.

And the Sooners played like it, getting pasted by Kansas State, 35-7. After LSU beat Georgia in the SEC title game and USC romped past Oregon State, as expected, USC ascended to No. 1 in both polls while LSU moved up to No. 2.

In the penultimate BCS standings, USC had a comfortable lead on LSU (6.90 vs. 8.43). The Trojans were ranked higher in the human polls and computer rankings and also had better strength-of-schedule ratings. The expectation was that USC would play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl with LSU left to howl.

But then Boise State beat Hawaii.

Say what?

Exactly right, that's what happened. Combined with Syracuse's 38-12 pasting of Notre Dame, the Tigers got enough of a boost to nudge out USC by .16 of a percentage point, getting Oklahoma as their date while the Trojans were left with a Rose Bowl berth against No. 4 Michigan.

Exiled_Devil
11-24-2008, 02:59 PM
Why exactly is it more of a challenge? It just allows more chance of random variation to determine the champion, resulting in things like Villanova winning it all.

My opinion is no more misguided than yours, Exiled_Devil. Again, it all comes back to how you define a champion. Clearly, we define it differently. I think tournaments are fun, and it is certainly an accomplishment to win one. But they don't define the best team over the course of the season, which is how I define a champion.

A tournament is more of a challenge because it requires a level of consistency in play that the regular season doesn't. Also, the way that NCAA tournaments are set up, the diversity of opponents adds to the challenge - you aren't playing the teams you play year in and year out.

As to the "all to rare" 3 way tie, it seems that the last three years have each had problems with how the BCS manages who plays in the 'national championship' game. What if, this year, the three best teams in the country are all from the same division of one conference? A real tournament could set up a situation where the two best could meet again. The BCS has rules that make that almost impossible.

As for misguided, I read your post as a sentimental remembrance of bygone era of the regional Bowls. I have no horse in this race - I am a casual football fan at best. However, I would join in the bracket pool for a football tournament, I am sure.

Exiled_Devil
11-24-2008, 03:03 PM
I am now officially rooting for this to happen because it would be BCS chaos on a level not previously seen, in my opinion. Florida could be the #1 team in one of the polls and not play for the national title. This is the greatest BCS chaos scenario EVER!!

--Jason "BCS Chaos-- ya gotta love it!" Evans

I'm with you - BCS chaos shortens the time to a real championship tournament.

On the other hand, it does increase the amount of senseless chatter about football on sports radio. (Although I do believe in the conservation of senseless chatter - it just changes sports throughout the year.)

Acymetric
11-24-2008, 03:07 PM
Sorry to use you, A-Tex, but this statement is one of the solid reasons that Cdu's defense of the BCS as a fair system to determine the 'best' team is misguided.

Too much of the BCS relies on the opinions. The SEC is up, the ACC is down, the Big Ten is not as good as this or that...all opinions if teams don't play one another. Possibly well articulated and substantiated, but just opinions no less. And sport is not about opinion. Sport is about who wins on the field.

This idea that a champion of the end-of-season tournament is not the best team of the year is a red herring. What do yo mean by 'best'? What is a national champion? Champions aren't voted in, they victors. And victory over more teams, when each game determines if you even play again, is more of a challenge than just playing well over a few months. If the 'best' team of the season can't survive that, they weren't really the best team.

The BCS is an artifact of the pre-national television era of college sports. It's time is past. A playoff would bring NCAA football into the 21st century.

I was just thinking of making a similar point about the "best" team when I read your post.

What is the "best" team? Is it the team that is better coached? The team with the best win-loss record? The team with the most talent? The team with the best offensive/defensive stats? How does everyone define "best" right now? Because its being thrown around as an arbitrary value.

My personal opinion is that "best" would mean the teams with the best chance of winning. Determining that is fairly subjective (sure, you can look at stats, but in a season of 11 or 12 games where everybody's schedules are completely different stats are really meaningless as far as I'm concerned).

Look at it like this. If I had to pick the top 2 teams in the country, I'd probably be wrong. My guess is, so would most of the voters, and the BCS computers. Why? Because like I said, stats aren't really that helpful here, so its almost guesswork. Purely opinion based (BCS is stat based, but what stats? Is it a good formula? There really isn't any way to test it, they tell us it worked every year and thats the only real verification we can get...can't run multiple trials each year to see if its accurate or anything).

Now, if I were to name the top 8 teams, I'd probably still be wrong, but chances are that at least teams 1-3 would be in my top 8. I'd argue its possible to have a BCS championship that could only have 1 team in the top 3. Possibly even worse than that in some cases. All I want is for all deserving teams to get a shot at the title. Does the 8th best team deserve the title? Probably not, but by including them you ensure that you've also somewhere in your 8 or 16 team playoff you have the team or two teams that really do deserve to win. Thats just my (somewhat disjointed) take.

Wander
11-24-2008, 04:50 PM
It's not corrupt. You just don't like it. There's a difference.


Everyone admits that bowls often choose teams based on how much money they will generate.



That's just it. Florida WASN'T the best team. They just happened to be the last team standing. By allowing the tournament, you eliminated all of the best teams over the course of the season (which is why I mentioned those others, as they knocked off #1 and #2 seeds early). This is a CLASSIC example of the tournament fallacy: you've labeled UF the best team in 2006 after the fact simply because they happened to get hot at the right time. They were not the best team over the course of the season. They were the hottest team at the end of the season, and benefited by having some of the other #1s get bounced early by inferior teams.


Florida was quite clearly the best team in 2006 in retrospect. They weren't simply the last team standing - they beat powerhouses Villanova and UCLA by double digits in clearly a clearly non-fluke fashion. I really don't like the Gators but I can't imagine how anyone can deny they were not the best team in 2006 and 2007. The tournament exposed teams like Duke (as much as it pains me to admit it) and UConn as being unworthy national champions. The 2006 tournament is a fantastic example of college basketball crowning the best team its champion (just like 2008, 2007, 2005,...)




The BCS is NOT more prone to flukes, because any system in which a series of one-game eliminations determines the champion is inherently the most prone to flukes.


Once again, a myth. I admit the NCAA tournament could be less prone to flukes by having each round be a best-of-three series, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the absolute fluke-fest that is college football, where things like a Louisville player jumping offsides in a Big East conference game causes Florida to win a national championship happen EVERY YEAR.



You are giving undeserving teams a chance to win a title with a tournament. The BCS eliminates that.


What the BCS does is eliminate DESERVING teams the chance to win a title.




Note how frequently the basketball championship is not won by a #1 seed. I should rest my case there, but you keep going so I feel inclined to do so as well.


Sometimes the best team in the country is not a #1 seed. Like Florida in 2006.



The difference is that your system introduces more chance that the best team won't win (more risk of losing early), while the BCS introduces speculation about whether or not we've identified the best.


If USC loses at home to the Sun Belt champion (a the system I mentioned would have as a first round game), maybe they aren't the best team to begin with.



Yes, tournaments are certainly fair. I never disagreed with that. But they don't determine the best team over the course of the season. They simply determine the hottest (and/or luckiest) team at the end of the season. If that's what you want, fine. But just understand that that's what you're getting with a tournament.


Yet another myth. How often does the NCAA tournament actually crown a champion that simply got hot and lucky at the right time? Kansas wasn't, Florida wasn't, UNC wasn't, UConn wasn't... Villanova, yes, absolutely, but they are the exception, not the rule. That's the difference between a playoff and the BCS: the playoff not working is the exception (Villanova), whereas the BCS actually doing its job correctly IS the exception (Texas 2005).



The BCS is fair, too - you just don't like it, so you deem it unfair. Nothing you've said above gives any proof of that. A playoff greatly increases the likelihood that the best team will lose early by introducing MORE single elimination games. The BCS assures that one of the top two (or top three or four, depending upon how much you trust the computers) will win. That's clearly a better route to determining a champion, in my opinion.

The BCS assures that deserving teams don't get a chance at the title. And can you please stop the "this is just an opinion thing, so every opinion is equally valid" fallacy? It's like saying "Holly Rowe is hotter than Erin Andrews... it's an opinion thing so don't try and tell me that your opinion is better than mine."

There are very few issues I see as black-and-white without shades of gray. The absolute miserable failure and unfairness of the BCS is one of them.

Wander
11-24-2008, 04:54 PM
A 16 team playoff is ludicrous. That is simply too many teams and too many extra games for football. Even the NFL does not have that many teams in the playoffs.

The NFL has 32 teams. College football has 120 teams.

But, as I mentioned, I favor a 14 team playoff, with all 11 conference champions getting in, the higher seeds getting home field advantage until the championship game or maybe the semifinals, and the top two seeds getting byes in the first week. The advantage of getting a high seed would be absolutely huge - much more than in basketball's NCAA tournament - so the regular season would be extremely meaningful.

ugadevil
11-24-2008, 04:55 PM
"Holly Rowe is hotter than Erin Andrews... it's an opinion thing so don't try and tell me that your opinion is better than mine."

If someone EVER says that, I will find said individual and run over him or her with my car.

Wander
11-24-2008, 05:02 PM
Look at it like this. If I had to pick the top 2 teams in the country, I'd probably be wrong.

Now, if I were to name the top 8 teams, I'd probably still be wrong, but chances are that at least teams 1-3 would be in my top 8. I'd argue its possible to have a BCS championship that could only have 1 team in the top 3. Possibly even worse than that in some cases. All I want is for all deserving teams to get a shot at the title. Does the 8th best team deserve the title? Probably not, but by including them you ensure that you've also somewhere in your 8 or 16 team playoff you have the team or two teams that really do deserve to win. Thats just my (somewhat disjointed) take.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. It's absolutely better - especially since these are not professional athletes - to have all the deserving teams in a field with some undeserving teams (who in the vast majority of years will be eliminated) than to eliminate some number of the deserving teams.

Those undeserving teams play a very important purpose in the field: they test, and possibly expose, some of those supposedly deserving teams (LSU over Duke in 2006). Very rarely do they actually end up winning the field.

brevity
11-24-2008, 06:31 PM
The ideal championship game this season, with no playoff option? That's easy: Alabama vs. Utah. With apologies to Boise State, Ball State, and no one else.

I wrote about this last year (http://nhmehta.blogspot.com/2007/12/8-plus-college-football-playoff.html). The teams have changed, but the sentiment is the same. Whether or not you like or can defend the BCS championship, an 8-plus college football playoff is just better. Not an 8 team playoff, an 8-PLUS team playoff. President-Elect Obama has the right idea, but he needs to take it a step further.

To sum up: the 6 BCS conference winners get automatic berths. Then the two highest ranked at large teams, according to the existing BCS standings. Then any undefeated teams from any conference not already invited. Take the group of 8+ teams and seed them by BCS standings. Right now the playoff seeds would look like this:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Texas (Big 12)
3. Oklahoma (at large) ,
4. Florida (at large)
5. Utah (undefeated)+
10. Oregon State (Pac-10)
11. FSU/GT (ACC)

Subject to change, of course. This year's lineup is unusual for a few reasons:

- 3 undefeated teams that are neither a BCS champion nor an at-large qualifier
- highest ranked Pac-10 team will probably not win its conference
- ACC and Big East both lack an elite team
- top tier of the polls filled with Big 12 and SEC teams that won't qualify

So yes, unusual. But still fair.

A-Tex Devil
11-25-2008, 09:10 AM
The ideal championship game this season, with no playoff option? That's easy: Alabama vs. Utah. With apologies to Boise State, Ball State, and no one else.

I wrote about this last year (http://nhmehta.blogspot.com/2007/12/8-plus-college-football-playoff.html). The teams have changed, but the sentiment is the same. Whether or not you like or can defend the BCS championship, an 8-plus college football playoff is just better. Not an 8 team playoff, an 8-PLUS team playoff. President-Elect Obama has the right idea, but he needs to take it a step further.

To sum up: the 6 BCS conference winners get automatic berths. Then the two highest ranked at large teams, according to the existing BCS standings. Then any undefeated teams from any conference not already invited. Take the group of 8+ teams and seed them by BCS standings. Right now the playoff seeds would look like this:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Texas (Big 12)
3. Oklahoma (at large) ,
4. Florida (at large)
5. Utah (undefeated)+
10. Oregon State (Pac-10)
11. FSU/GT (ACC)

Subject to change, of course. This year's lineup is unusual for a few reasons:

- 3 undefeated teams that are neither a BCS champion nor an at-large qualifier
- highest ranked Pac-10 team will probably not win its conference
- ACC and Big East both lack an elite team
- top tier of the polls filled with Big 12 and SEC teams that won't qualify

So yes, unusual. But still fair.

This is a version of the flex system that is written about in GREAT detail at the below links (very long, but cool, read).

http://www.burntorangenation.com/story/2007/2/14/112855/352

http://www.burntorangenation.com/story/2007/2/15/95736/7581

I agree a flexible system is the ideal approach, but it's not static enough for TV, the bowls and the schools, which is why it will never happen. The powers that be aren't nimble enough to work a system that is just a little outside the box (but not much) like this one is. In a flex system, you know EXACTLY what you need to do to get in the playoffs, regardless of where you fall in conference or what conference you are in.

billybreen
11-25-2008, 09:23 AM
The ideal championship game this season, with no playoff option? That's easy: Alabama vs. Utah. With apologies to Boise State, Ball State, and no one else.

I disagree that undefeated makes you a shoe-in for the championship game. Convince me that Utah's wins are worth more than those of Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech.

JasonEvans
11-25-2008, 10:48 AM
I disagree that undefeated makes you a shoe-in for the championship game. Convince me that Utah's wins are worth more than those of Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech.

If undefeated was all that mattered then teams would never play a decent non-conference opponent. Fla-FSU, Ga-Ga Tech, and other storied non-conf rivalries would simply go away. We cannot have that.

--Jason "playing a tough schedule should be rewarded" Evans

rockymtn devil
11-25-2008, 08:45 PM
This has been a fascinating discussion, so I hate to be the bearer of bad news (JasonEvans already was earlier in the thread): with the new ESPN contract, the BCS is not going anywhere anytime soon.

With that said, the one shot for BCS implosion is when the B10/P10/Rose Bowl contract with ABC is up...in 2014. If, at that point, those entities decide to walk away from the BCS, it will fall apart. No system can claim to crown a "true national champion" (I said claim; not necessarily back it up) when their system doesn't include USC and Ohio State/Michigan. If, prior to that, the other BCS conferences make a play for a "plus one" or flex system (certainly a move in the right direction), the B10/P10/Rose Bowl coalition has vowed to walk away from the system and, as noted above, render it moot.

What this all means is that a playoff isn't coming. The Rose Bowl coalition holds all the cards (especially so long as USC is the premier college football program) and it has too much vested in the BCS to let it crumble. It will continue to exploit its power to keep the BCS alive.

A-Tex Devil
11-25-2008, 09:29 PM
This has been a fascinating discussion, so I hate to be the bearer of bad news (JasonEvans already was earlier in the thread): with the new ESPN contract, the BCS is not going anywhere anytime soon.

With that said, the one shot for BCS implosion is when the B10/P10/Rose Bowl contract with ABC is up...in 2014. If, at that point, those entities decide to walk away from the BCS, it will fall apart. No system can claim to crown a "true national champion" (I said claim; not necessarily back it up) when their system doesn't include USC and Ohio State/Michigan. If, prior to that, the other BCS conferences make a play for a "plus one" or flex system (certainly a move in the right direction), the B10/P10/Rose Bowl coalition has vowed to walk away from the system and, as noted above, render it moot.

What this all means is that a playoff isn't coming. The Rose Bowl coalition holds all the cards (especially so long as USC is the premier college football program) and it has too much vested in the BCS to let it crumble. It will continue to exploit its power to keep the BCS alive.

That's why I was hoping Penn State would win out, but lose out to a 1 loss team for the BCS championship game. Add that to the fact Pete Carroll of USC and his AD want a playoff, and I think that might have been the tipping point for the Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl tradition obsession.

rockymtn devil
11-25-2008, 09:52 PM
That's why I was hoping Penn State would win out, but lose out to a 1 loss team for the BCS championship game. Add that to the fact Pete Carroll of USC and his AD want a playoff, and I think that might have been the tipping point for the Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl tradition obsession.

It goes beyond the tradition. Something that many--perhaps most--of the people that complain about the Rose Bowl Coalition don't actually realize is that their connection is greater than, say, the SEC and the Sugar Bowl. Both the Big Ten and the Pac 10 have representatives on the board of the Rose Bowl. In other words, they have a much greater financial interest in that particular bowl than any other conferences have in the BCS in general. As such, it makes no financial sense for them end the tradition. If the other conferences want to end it, the Rose Bowl Coalition will simply walk away, taking the bowl with them. The Cotton Bowl, as a replacement, just isn't the Rose Bowl.

In a more concrete setting, putting aside that the Rose Bowl could not have selected Georgia last season, why would a selection committee with B10 representatives opt to not choose an eligible B10 team?

rockymtn devil
11-26-2008, 04:16 PM
Stewart Mandel on the mess:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/11/24/bcs.trouble/index.html

He makes a great argument against a full scale 8 or 16 team playoff. It's not that it will devalue the regular season. It's that it would have the potential to devalue individual games that, as they stand, have tremendous value. What if Ohio State knew it was going to make the playoffs? Would it sit its starters for the Michigan game? Would being a 4 seed instead of a 6 seed be worth risking injury?

Wander
11-26-2008, 04:43 PM
He makes a great argument against a full scale 8 or 16 team playoff. It's not that it will devalue the regular season. It's that it would have the potential to devalue individual games that, as they stand, have tremendous value. What if Ohio State knew it was going to make the playoffs? Would it sit its starters for the Michigan game? Would being a 4 seed instead of a 6 seed be worth risking injury?

If you construct the playoff properly, then yes, it would be worth it. Having home field and/or a bye week would be a gigantic advantage. I agree that a 16 team playoff on neutral fields is not ideal for college football.

Also, I admit that a playoff has the potential to devalue some individual games, but the number of those games is much, much less than the number of individual games that would increase in value. Nobody in the country gives a flying crap about the ACC championship game unless their team is in it, but if its winner gets a spot in the playoff field, it's a different story. Hell, just take a look at this weekend's list of games: Maryland/BC, Oregon/Oregon State, Cincy/Syracuse, Virginia/VT.... all would be much more nationally relevant with a playoff field. A playoff would actually INCREASE the value of the regular season for most teams, not decrease it.

billybreen
11-30-2008, 09:02 PM
Thanks to the BCS, a team that Texas beat by 10 earlier this year will play against Missouri for the Big-12 championship. That's crap.

A-Tex Devil
11-30-2008, 09:06 PM
Thanks to the BCS, a team that Texas beat by 10 earlier this year will play against Missouri for the Big-12 championship. That's crap.

In fairness to the BCS (gag), this is the Big XII's fault for not having the foresight of the SEC and ACC tiebreakers.

rockymtn devil
11-30-2008, 09:07 PM
Thanks to the BCS, a team that Texas beat by 10 earlier this year will play against Missouri for the Big-12 championship. That's crap.

Out of curiosity, anyone have any idea what the Big 12 rules for a 3-way tie were prior to the BCS? Do we know that, under the old system, the outcome would've been different?

Olympic Fan
12-01-2008, 02:03 PM
I get tired of hearing ESPN shills extol the virtues of the BCS -- especially since ESPN now owns the BCS and has a vested interest in preventing a playoff.

What I hate are the misty-eyed proclamation about how the current system means that every game counts ... I even heard one blowhard bloviate about how under the current system, evey game is a playoff game.

Tell that Utah or Boise State ...

Actually, I wouldn't mind a regular season based system IF EVERYBODY PLAYED THE SAME OR EVEN SIMILAR SCHEDULES.

But they don't. Because conferences vary in strength year to year, some teams have the benefit of not being tested (or not tested often) while others play a murderer's row of ranked opponents.

Take the SEC. There are years when winning the SEC is a golden ticket to the national title game (or should be). But look at the current BCS standings. No. 1 Alabama has beaten exactly one team that's ranked in the current standings -- No. 16 Georgia. No. 4 Florida has also beaten No. 16 Georgia, plus No. 24 Florida State.

By contrast, No. 2 Oklahoma has lost to No. 3 Texas, routed No. 7 Texas Tech, handily defeated No. 11 TCU and No. 13 Cincinnati and put up 60 on No. 14 Oklahoma State -- that's FIVE games against teams ranked higher than anybody Alabama or Florida has played.

Admittedly, Alabama and Florida will play each other, so one will get a quality win in the SEC title game ... at least we think so. What if Florida beats 'Bama in the title game -- is 'Bama, which hasn't beaten a top 15 team all year, really a fair test of Florida's prowess? What would Georgia Tech have done against 'Bama's schedule? Bama's second-best win was against 7-win Clemson, a team Ga Tech also beat ... Bama played one top 25 BCS team; Tech played four. Yes, Georgia Tech lost three games ... how many would Bama have lost if they had actually played anybody?

Heck, if Penn State hadn't blow a game against unranked Iowa, THEY would be in the BCS title game ... their only ranked wins in a down Big Ten are over No. 10 Ohio State and No. 21 Michigan State (they didn't play No. 22 Northwestern in the Big Ten). Southern Cal is trying to sneak in with wins over No. 10 Ohio State and No. 19 Oregon.

Texas has to hope that Oklahoma loses to No. 20 Missouri in the Big 12 title game (which will be OU's SIXTH ranked opponent). The Longhorns have a victory over No. 2 Oklahoma, a loss to No. 7 Texas Tech and wins over No. 14 Oklahoma State and No. 20 Missouri.

The current system rewards a team in a power conference playing a weak schedule in a year when the league is down. It punishes teams in leagues having great years -- the SEC the last two years, the Big 12 this year.

You can't make the regular season the deciding factor (in picking the final two teams) when teams play such widely varying schedules.

BTW: Duke ended up playing a better schedule that Alabama, Florida, Penn State or Southern Cal in terms of number of ranked opponents: No. 15 Georgia Tech (ranked higher than anybody Florida or Alabama beat), No. 22 Northwestern and No. 24 Virginia Tech.

rockymtn devil
12-07-2008, 08:53 PM
Well we got exactly what was expected. Two absolute snoozers (VT-Cin.; Bama-Utah), two above average, intriguing games (USC-PSU; OSU-UT) and an offensive packed title game.

As for the games, I think the Bearcats have too much speed for the Hokies and win that game by 10+. Utah's defense will slow Alabama down, but the Utes won't be able to score and the Tide will pull away late. USC will win comfortably without blowing Penn State out (10-14). Texas-Ohio State is a close game that the Horns win in the fourth quarter.

In the title game, I think both offenses can torch both defenses, so, IMO, it comes down to who can limit/force turnovers. That team wins.

Troublemaker
12-07-2008, 10:13 PM
BCS championship game should be outstanding. I wish someone had found a way to get Alabama and Texas to play, though. UT/tOSU and Bama/Utah just aren't as compelling. Current lines for those interested:

Fla -3 vs OU
Tex -10.5 vs tOSU
Bama -10.5 vs Utah
USC -10 vs PSU
Cincy -2 vs VT

BlueintheFace
12-07-2008, 11:14 PM
In fairness to the BCS (gag), this is the Big XII's fault for not having the foresight of the SEC and ACC tiebreakers.

The REALLY funny part is that the computer has Texas and OU in the national championship game... it's the human elements of the BCS that screwed over UT... what a world.

Stray Gator
12-08-2008, 03:21 PM
I freakin' cannot WAIT until Florida and Alabama play each other. I hope it's a good game, at least.

Wish granted. ;)

Having attended every SEC Championship Game in which the Gators played--including the first two in Birmingham, where the weather was miserable--I can say without reservation that this one was the best ever, even though the score ended up not as close as a few others. It was a classic SEC back-and-forth slugfest between two physically strong and talented and determined teams in front of a record crowd, which was about evenly divided between Gator and Bama fans. I think everyone in the stadium used up every bit of voice and every ounce of energy they could muster--except perhaps for one of the young women sitting in front of us who arrived two minutes before kickoff, cheered wildly through the Gators' first touchdown drive, and then passed out until the middle of the fourth quarter.

A-Tex Devil
12-08-2008, 04:17 PM
The championship game is going to be interesting. Now that I'm over the whole screw job that UT got T-giving weekend (just kill tOSU and create at least a conversation about a split championship, and I'll be happy), let's look to the mythical national championship game between UF and OU.

Barring a plethora of turnovers, I think OU drops at least 5 touchdowns on Florida. No one is stopping that offense altogether. That being said, Florida's offense, much like UT's, can control the ball. The funny thing about OU is that even though they score a ton of points, they are hardly a ball control offense. One of the reasons UT beat them was because OU's defense was dog tired at the end of the game from being on the field so much. Also, by the 4th quarter, Brian Orakpo cost Phil Loadholt about $2M in signing bonus money by constantly beating him to Sam Bradford in the second half.

That's where I think OU loses it. Florida weathers the first half storm, and may even be behind by 2 TDs at some point. But OU's o-line and d-line will get worn out by the end of the game. OU's o-line will be stunned at the number of holding penalties that will get called on them ("But we've been playing that way all year, ref!") costing OU a couple of drives. The game will look a lot like UT-OU and end up somewhere around 42-38 Florida. It will be a great game, SEC will win, but the meme that Big XII offenses are no match for SEC defenses will be thrown out the window. Nobody's defense is a match for Florida and OU. I just wish the Fiesta bowl would have let UT play 'Bama. I loved that matchup for the horns. Oh well.

rockymtn devil
12-08-2008, 06:41 PM
I just wish the Fiesta bowl would have let UT play 'Bama. I loved that matchup for the horns. Oh well.

I'm no expert on the BCS, but I believe that Fiesta Bowl had nothing to do with Alabama not getting chosen for that game. Just like Georgia and the Rose Bowl last year, the Fiesta could not choose Alabama. Because the Sugar Bowl lost Florida, it had a right to another SEC team and would've had to agree to let the Fiesta take Alabama. It wasn't going to do that, especially since it knew it was going to get Utah.

In light of that, and based on BCS rules, the Fiesta had to choose between Ohio State, Boise State, TCU, and Georgia Tech. It's hard to argue with their choice.

A-Tex Devil
12-08-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm no expert on the BCS, but I believe that Fiesta Bowl had nothing to do with Alabama not getting chosen for that game. Just like Georgia and the Rose Bowl last year, the Fiesta could not choose Alabama. Because the Sugar Bowl lost Florida, it had a right to another SEC team and would've had to agree to let the Fiesta take Alabama. It wasn't going to do that, especially since it knew it was going to get Utah.

In light of that, and based on BCS rules, the Fiesta had to choose between Ohio State, Boise State, TCU, and Georgia Tech. It's hard to argue with their choice.

The Fiesta had first pick and chose Texas. I'm not saying this was a bad decision, but if they didn't pick Texas with the first choice, Texas would have ended up in the Sugar Bowl against Alabama. So, in essence, the Fiesta Bowl did prevent a Alabama-Texas matchup in the Sugar Bowl. I don't blame them for choosing Texas, but it would have been nice to play 'Bama.

roywhite
12-08-2008, 07:39 PM
.
Current lines for those interested:

Fla -3 vs OU
Tex -10.5 vs tOSU
Bama -10.5 vs Utah
USC -10 vs PSU
Cincy -2 vs VT

For entertainment purposes only :D, I like

Florida to cover and win by 10 points or so
tOSU to come close and may win the game
Bama to cover and win by more than 14
Penn State to cover and may win the game
VT to win outright

Big 10/11 is being punished for the weak showing of tOSU in the last 2 BCS Championship games. But Ohio State matches up well with Texas (good secondary and good pass defense overall), and Penn State is a very good team; Paterno has an outstanding bowl record, and does a great job in preparation.

There are some good games that would be even better if they were part of a play-off.

Wander
12-08-2008, 09:28 PM
Another epic fail by the BCS.

Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Utah, and Penn State all will have a completely reasonable claim to being the best team in the country if they win their bowl game. Note that obviously two of those teams have to win, with a third being a double digit favorite. Boise State might have a claim too, except the BCS failed once again by putting them with TCU, which has to be one of the most unappealing matchups of top 10 teams in recent history. Sure, if they lose, no big deal - but what if Boise wins? No one will have absolutely any idea if they're a Top 5 team or not.

How many times does this garbage have to fail before it's replaced? 15 years? 20? 50?