PDA

View Full Version : BCS Chaos!!!



A-Tex Devil
12-01-2007, 10:19 PM
On topic? If not, please move.

I am going to assume OU is holding on. OK, so our nightmare scenario is upon us (I can hardly hold in my glee).

First - Ohio State is in fair and square. Conference champions with 1 loss. No other BCS team can claim that. Assuming OU wins, while a lot of us think at this point Hawaii (if they beat UW) might as well get a shot at Ohio State, they won't.

So who is most deserving? Gun to my head, it's LSU, but all of LSU, UGa, Va Tech, USC, OU, and to some extent KU (if UGa has a claim, they do) have arguments. I mean, if winning your conference championship isn't part of the equation (it should be, but it's not), Georgia and KU shouldn't be excluded from the discussion.

Back when there was maybe one other team with a claim, people could say, well that's too bad (see: USC, Auburn in 2003, 2004, Oregon in 2001). There are at least 4 and up to 7 teams with an argument to play the Buckeyes. One team is going to win that lottery. Is that how the mythical national championship should be decided?

rockymtn devil
12-01-2007, 10:26 PM
That sound in the background is the BCS imploding. My guess--and it's purely a guess--is that the voters put Kansas #2 in the human polls, therefore putting the Jayhawks into the national title game.

For all the talk we'll certainly hear about who's playing best right now (as if that's relevant; "best now" doesn't mean "best season") I think the voters will be more comfortable pitting the two 1-loss teams against one another. If it has to be a 2-loss team, then LSU is the choice. They trump both Georgia and VT easily, and USC lost to Stanford (with its backup QB) which disqualifies them automatically.

Wander
12-01-2007, 10:31 PM
Hawaii! Do it! If there was ever a season...

rockymtn devil
12-01-2007, 10:37 PM
After listening to Herbstreit butcher this, here's how I think the BCS games will look:

Sugar: Hawaii vs. LSU
Orange: VT vs. West Virginia
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Georgia
Rose: USC vs. Illinois (assuming they get into the top 14)
National Title: Ohio State vs. Kansas

The Rose Bowl will get the first selection and take Illinois in order to keep the B10-P10 matchup intact. The Fiesta Bowl would get the second choice and I think they'll take Georgia because of the fan base and the "hot team" factor.

sundown
12-01-2007, 10:40 PM
Hawaii! Do it! If there was ever a season...

I sincerely agree with this. Hawaii hasn't earned it, but neither has anyone else. Why not let in the team that hasn't lost?

Of course, there's no chance it will happen. I think it's OSU-LSU.

A-Tex Devil
12-01-2007, 10:43 PM
Honestly, they should just go old school

Rose: OSU vs. USC
Orange: Oklahoma vs. Virginia Tech
Sugar: LSU vs. Georgia (why not?)
Fiesta: Kansas vs. West Virginia

Put Hawaii in the Holiday bowl against Missouri (WAC vs. next best available school, just like back in the '80s)


I'd watch all those games.

CDu
12-01-2007, 10:47 PM
On topic? If not, please move.

I am going to assume OU is holding on. OK, so our nightmare scenario is upon us (I can hardly hold in my glee).

First - Ohio State is in fair and square. Conference champions with 1 loss. No other BCS team can claim that. Assuming OU wins, while a lot of us think at this point Hawaii (if they beat UW) might as well get a shot at Ohio State, they won't.

So who is most deserving? Gun to my head, it's LSU, but all of LSU, UGa, Va Tech, USC, OU, and to some extent KU (if UGa has a claim, they do) have arguments. I mean, if winning your conference championship isn't part of the equation (it should be, but it's not), Georgia and KU shouldn't be excluded from the discussion.

Back when there was maybe one other team with a claim, people could say, well that's too bad (see: USC, Auburn in 2003, 2004, Oregon in 2001). There are at least 4 and up to 7 teams with an argument to play the Buckeyes. One team is going to win that lottery. Is that how the mythical national championship should be decided?

That is just as good (in my opinion) as making the regular season largely irrelevant and deciding the mythical national championship by a 3-game playoff. Make no mistake, the winner of a 3-game playoff between 8 teams is just as mythical a champion as the winner of a 1-game playoff between the top 2 seeds.

Realistically, the fact that the championship may well go to a 2-loss team isn't so much a reflection upon the BCS as it is a reflection of the parity of college football this season. When you consider that that 2-loss team had both losses in TRIPLE overtime, it takes some of the edge off. LSU played probably the toughest schedule, and they very easily could have been undefeated. As is, either the title will go to a team with 1 loss or a team with 2 very very close losses.

I think the system is fine. They play 3+ months worth of football to weed out the consensus two best teams. Those two teams play to decide the champion. If there's no consensus as to which 2 teams are best after 3+ months, then does it really matter? Does any team deserve the title of champion if they can't differentiate themselves from the rest over a 3+ month span?

Switching to an 8-team playoff just redistributes the problem. Instead of struggling to decide on the #2 team, you struggle to decide on the #8 team. And you then basically make the regular season meaningless, because most of the best teams only have a couple of true tests anyway. So basically you change the criteria for being a champion from being arguably the best over 4 months to being arguably one of the best over 3+ months and being the best or most fortunate over the last 3 weeks.

buddy
12-01-2007, 10:47 PM
Ohio State loses to LSU in the Championship game, Kansas loses to whomever in whatever game, and Hawaii wins out. So the national champion (and everyone else) will have two losses, while Hawaii will not be voted No. 1 despite being the only undefeated team in the country. Then maybe we get a meaningful playoff. But looking at how Hawaii has (or has not) started, won't get my wish.

Stray Gator
12-01-2007, 11:04 PM
IMO, neither Georgia nor Kansas should be considered for the BCS Championship Game, for the simple reason that neither of those teams won their division, much less their conference. I would vote for LSU to face Ohio State, because LSU played the toughest schedule of the two-loss teams, won the championship of the most highly competitive conference, and their only losses were narrow defeats by two bowl-bound teams in triple overtime. In addition, LSU had to play both those games with Dorsey, the best defensive lineman in the country, sidelined by injury. I'm no fan of the Corndogs, but they are IMO the most deserving team to play Ohio State for the national title.

billybreen
12-01-2007, 11:07 PM
IMO, neither Georgia nor Kansas should be considered for the BCS Championship Game, for the simple reason that neither of those teams won their division, much less their conference. I would vote for LSU to face Ohio State, because LSU played the toughest schedule of the two-loss teams, won the championship of the most highly competitive conference, and their only losses were narrow defeats by two bowl-bound teams in triple overtime. In addition, LSU had to play both those games with Dorsey, the best defensive lineman in the country, sidelined by injury. I'm no fan of the Corndogs, but they are IMO the most deserving team to play Ohio State for the national title.

Agreed. I think LSU / OSU should be the draw, but you can make a decent case for USC.

sundown
12-01-2007, 11:08 PM
IMO, neither Georgia nor Kansas should be considered for the BCS Championship Game, for the simple reason that neither of those teams won their division, much less their conference. I would vote for LSU to face Ohio State, because LSU played the toughest schedule of the two-loss teams, won the championship of the most highly competitive conference, and their only losses were narrow defeats by two bowl-bound teams in triple overtime. In addition, LSU had to play both those games with Dorsey, the best defensive lineman in the country, sidelined by injury. I'm no fan of the Corndogs, but they are IMO the most deserving team to play Ohio State for the national title.

I completely agree.

A-Tex Devil
12-01-2007, 11:12 PM
LSU played probably the toughest schedule, and they very easily could have been undefeated. As is, either the title will go to a team with 1 loss or a team with 2 very very close losses.

That argument is easily flipped -- they could have easily had 4 losses too considering the end of the Florida and Alabama games. And as many have said on this board -- Duke was only several plays away from 4 to 6 wins the last 2 seasons.

My feeling is that if we get a BCS result like this, let's just go back to the way it was so the other bowls aren't marginalized. Obviously TV money gets in the way, but I miss the sensory overload of all the games on New Years day and multiple games having national championship implications. We can still let the polls decide if we must, but let's get rid of this fake national championship game.

ugadevil
12-01-2007, 11:16 PM
I'll admit up front that I'm wanting UGA in the championship game more than anything. I know there are plenty of teams that have a case at being in the championship game, and I doubt UGA will get a chance to play. However, I just heard Mark Richt on ESPN talk about why Georgia deserves a chance to play and he had a valid point.

The teams that are ranked currently at 3rd through 6th are there because the voters put them there. This past week, voters knew that they wouldn't have a chance to win the conference championship but they still put them in those positions in the polls. UGA, Kansas, Va. Tech didn't put themselves at these positions in the rankings, it was the voters. Now, the voters are going to change this because there's some unwritten rule about winning the conference championship. In the end, I think the voting process is just as screwed up as the rest of the BCS system.

Lastly, I'm sick of hearing about LSU's losses are not as bad because they lost in triple overtime in both games. What difference does it make? It's still a loss. If you're gonna talk about how they had close losses, then don't you have to talk about how they had so many close wins that weren't dominating performances?

rockymtn devil
12-01-2007, 11:17 PM
That argument is easily flipped -- they could have easily had 4 losses too considering the end of the Florida and Alabama games. And as many have said on this board -- Duke was only several plays away from 4 to 6 wins the last 2 seasons.

My feeling is that if we get a BCS result like this, let's just go back to the way it was so the other bowls aren't marginalized. Obviously TV money gets in the way, but I miss the sensory overload of all the games on New Years day and multiple games having national championship implications. We can still let the polls decide if we must, but let's get rid of this fake national championship game.

But let's not forget that the old way effectively eliminated Big 10 and Pac 10 teams from the AP National Championship because those teams stayed alligned with a bowl that was not in the Bowl Alliance/Coalition. Before there was 2004 Auburn there was 1994 Penn State.

ugadevil
12-01-2007, 11:24 PM
good to see that hawaii isn't showing up now that the pressure is on. down 21-0 in the 2nd

rockymtn devil
12-01-2007, 11:27 PM
Don't look now, but Hawaii is getting trounced. BCS nightmare scenario #2, that there aren't enough teams that qualify under BCS rules for an at-large bid, may also play out.

Bluedog
12-01-2007, 11:31 PM
It seems that the consensus here and according to ESPN "experts" is that it's going to be Ohio St/LSU for the title. Ok, here are some things I don't understand:

1.) The "experts" are also saying the Big XII will be getting two BCS bids - Oklahoma for winning the conference and Kansas. What? Why Kansas instead of Mizzou? Mizzou beat Kansas LAST week. Mizzou won the division, while Kansas did not. Mizzou had the same record as Kansas through the first twelve games, beat them head-to-head, and won the division that both of them are in. And Kansas is considered the second best team in the Big XII why? Simply because they didn't play in the conference championship game so they couldn't get another loss. Why are teams penalized for playing for their conference championship?

2.) If Ohio ST/LSU will be playing for the title (i.e. LSU leapfrogs the idle Georgia), what were the voters thinking last week when they voted Georgia to be ranked higher than LSU?!? It was already known that Georgia had a zero percent chance to win their conference, yet the voters still chose to rank Georgia better. I personally thought voters were kinda crazy, and that a team not even in the championship game for the conference should certainly not be ranked the highest.

3.) It seems that losing in the conference championship game penalizes teams too much, IMO. Teams that finish second in their league are sometimes ranked lower than teams that finish third for the mere fact that the third place finishing team didn't lose the last game. Why!? A team that loses in the semifinals of the ACC bball tourney is rarely, if ever, considered better than the team that loses in the final. The BCS unfairly puts conferences with championship games at a disadvantage, thereby helping the Big Ten, Big East, and Pac Ten. Why is Ohio St such a clear favorite for the national championship game when they play one fewer game and miss out on a really tough test at the end of the season? I guess conferences would rather have the money from the title game than help their chances a bit by not having it...

4.) Why is it so clear that LSU will get into the national championship game over VT? Again, were the voters/computers crazy last week as VT was ranked one spot higher than LSU?....and VT beat #11 Boston College 30-16 soundly this week, while LSU had a tight one with with #14 TN 21-14. I personally agree that LSU is more deserving than VT to get into the title game, but if I had no knowledge of either of their seasons and somebody told me VT is ranked #5 and beat the #11 team soundly, while LSU is ranked #6 and pulled out a tight one against the #14 team in the country, I'd say VT is more deserving. So, my main question is again, what were the voters/computers thinking last week when they ranked VT higher - and what has occurred that would change their mind? VT and LSU both won - VT more impressively against supposedly harder competition.

Ok, that's my venting for the day. Seems completely random and illogical if you ask me...

feldspar
12-01-2007, 11:31 PM
If there's no consensus as to which 2 teams are best after 3+ months, then does it really matter? Does any team deserve the title of champion if they can't differentiate themselves from the rest over a 3+ month span?

Agreed. In fact, I think the whole shebang should be done away with and the sportswriters should just vote for the national champion in September and save everyone a bunch of time and money. Then, extend college basketball by three months. :rolleyes:

College football is a joke. This season is exactly why I don't waste my time with it.

DUAA_shirt
12-01-2007, 11:34 PM
Georgia in the BCS title game??? How do you figure since they weren't even playing in the SEC Championship game? Nobody's going to be playing for the National Championship without winning their own conference. This BCS mess is hilarious due to the parody among all of the football factories in the Top 10.

A-Tex Devil
12-01-2007, 11:37 PM
But let's not forget that the old way effectively eliminated Big 10 and Pac 10 teams from the AP National Championship because those teams stayed alligned with a bowl that was not in the Bowl Alliance/Coalition. Before there was 2004 Auburn there was 1994 Penn State.

True. But Washington and Michigan both shared national championships under the old era as well in the '90s. I'm not really sure there is a difference.

10 years of the BCS and at least 4-5 years (off the top of my head) where at least a 3rd team had a legitimate gripe. Doesn't seem that much different than the old system and now only one game means anything in the big picture.

rockymtn devil
12-01-2007, 11:39 PM
It seems that the consensus here and according to ESPN "experts" is that it's going to be Ohio St/LSU for the title. Ok, here are some things I don't understand:

1.) The "experts" are also saying the Big XII will be getting two BCS bids - Oklahoma for winning the conference and Kansas. What? Why Kansas instead of Mizzou? Mizzou beat Kansas LAST week. Mizzou won the division, while Kansas did not. Mizzou had the same record as Kansas through the first twelve games, beat them head-to-head, and won the division that both of them are in. And Kansas is considered the second best team in the Big XII why? Simply because they didn't play in the conference championship game so they couldn't get another loss. Why are teams penalized for playing for their conference championship?

2.) If Ohio ST/LSU will be playing for the title (i.e. LSU leapfrogs the idle Georgia), what were the voters thinking last week when they voted Georgia to be ranked higher than LSU?!? It was already known that Georgia had a zero percent chance to win their conference, yet the voters still chose to rank Georgia better. I personally thought voters were kinda crazy, and that a team not even in the championship game for the conference should certainly not be ranked the highest.

3.) It seems that losing in the conference championship game penalizes teams too much, IMO. Teams that finish second in their league are sometimes ranked lower than teams that finish third for the mere fact that the third place finishing team didn't lose the last game. Why!? A team that loses in the semifinals of the ACC bball tourney is rarely, if ever, considered better than the team that loses in the final. The BCS unfairly puts conferences with championship games at a disadvantage, thereby helping the Big Ten, Big East, and Pac Ten. Why is Ohio St such a clear favorite for the national championship game when they play one fewer game and miss out on a really tough test at the end of the season? I guess conferences would rather have the money from the title game than help their chances a bit by not having it...

4.) Why is it so clear that LSU will get into the national championship game over VT? Again, were the voters/computers crazy last week as VT was ranked one spot higher than LSU?....and VT beat #11 Boston College 30-16 soundly this week, while LSU had a tight one with with #14 TN 21-14. I personally agree that LSU is more deserving than VT to get into the title game, but if I had no knowledge of either of their seasons and somebody told me VT is ranked #5 and beat the #11 team soundly, while LSU is ranked #6 and pulled out a tight one against the #14 team in the country, I'd say VT is more deserving. So, my main question is again, what were the voters/computers thinking last week when they ranked VT higher - and what has occurred that would change their mind? VT and LSU both won - VT more impressively against supposedly harder competition.

Ok, that's my venting for the day. Seems completely random and illogical if you ask me...

1. This brings up a common misconception about BCS bowl selection. Aside from the National Title game, the other bowls are under no obligation to choose the "best" or more deserving team. They can--and will--choose the team that they think will provide the better matchup and/or will bring the most fans. With respect to Kansas getting in over Missouri, the consensus is that the Jayhawks will play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl has no interest in choosing a Mizzou team that has already lost to OU twice.

2. I suppose after seeing LSU one more time the voters could determine that they are indeed better than Georgia. Or, more likely, once the nightmare situation unfolded, the voters will try and avoid having a non-conference champion play for the title if they can avoid it.

3. I have no sympathy for teams that lose in their conference title game. Every team in the SEC, Big 12, and ACC will pocket at least $1M more than their Big Ten, Big East, Pac-10 counterparts because of the conference title game. In other words, these teams knowingly took the additional money and set themselves up for a loss like Missouri's.

4. LSU went to VT and destroyed the Hokies this year. That's why.

Bluedog
12-01-2007, 11:44 PM
1. This brings up a common misconception about BCS bowl selection. Aside from the National Title game, the other bowls are under no obligation to choose the "best" or more deserving team. They can--and will--choose the team that they think will provide the better matchup and/or will bring the most fans. With respect to Kansas getting in over Missouri, the consensus is that the Jayhawks will play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl has no interest in choosing a Mizzou team that has already lost to OU twice.

2. I suppose after seeing LSU one more time the voters could determine that they are indeed better than Georgia. Or, more likely, once the nightmare situation unfolded, the voters will try and avoid having a non-conference champion play for the title if they can avoid it.

3. I have no sympathy for teams that lose in their conference title game. Every team in the SEC, Big 12, and ACC will pocket at least $1M more than their Big Ten, Big East, Pac-10 counterparts because of the conference title game. In other words, these teams knowingly took the additional money and set themselves up for a loss like Missouri's.

4. LSU went to VT and destroyed the Hokies this year. That's why.

Ok, for the first three answers. For #4, I agree completely that LSU is more deserving than VT. But VT was still ranked higher than LSU LAST WEEK after LSU had destroyed VT. I was asking what the voters were smoking last week, and what happened this week to change their mind. LSU didn't beat VT in the past seven days....it was a while ago.

Edit: Actually, the voters ranked LSU higher, while computers ranked VT higher, so VT had a higher cumulative avg. So, I should restate the question. Why is it that ESPN "experts" and others assume LSU will leapfrog VT based on the results of today when VT was arguably more impressive today.

DUAA_shirt
12-01-2007, 11:51 PM
"College football is a joke. This season is exactly why I don't waste my time with it."[/QUOTE]

Amen. More reasons why the argument for a true playoff system should happen. But of course, we'll never see it.

ugadevil
12-01-2007, 11:56 PM
Ok, for the first three answers. For #4, I agree completely that LSU is more deserving than VT. But VT was still ranked higher than LSU LAST WEEK after LSU had destroyed VT. I was asking what the voters were smoking last week, and what happened this week to change their mind. LSU didn't beat VT in the past seven days....it was a while ago.


I agree with you. I don't understand why LSU has now become the sexy pick to jump everyone. They were not as impressive as Va. Tech today. If they're better than Va. Tech, which I think they are and they proved it when they killed them this season, then they should have been ranked above VT before today. If the excuse is made about LSU's injuries, then put USC in the National Championship because they're healthy now. I think the polls have no credibility because they're changed for ridiculous reasons. I just want the championship to be played by the 2 best teams in the country right now.

A-Tex Devil
12-01-2007, 11:57 PM
4. LSU went to VT and destroyed the Hokies this year. That's why.

It was actually in Baton Rouge, but I agree this should DQ the Hokies under my own personal rankings in my head.

Here's the Georgia argument for the sake of being a devil's advocate -- they had the exact same success during the regular season as LSU. They happened to lose to a team (Tennessee) that had a better conference record than LSU's two losses (Ark., Kentucky) so they lost a tie breaker. If Georgia had beaten TN and lost to, say, Kentucky, they would have had the same record and played LSU today. They got punished for (1) losing to a team stronger than the teams that LSU lost to and (2) playing in a stronger SEC division. Also -- there is no requirement to win your conference to make the BCS championship game. (See Nebraska and OU from several years back). I think there should be, but by the rules of the game, if the computers bump Georgia enough to make them number 2, then conference champs have nothing to do with it. (It's so so easy to pass a conference champion rule going forward, until they do, UGa and KU have arguments).

I think OU, USC and LSU all have fairly equal cases, honestly. I hope it's one of them that get in. 2 loss conference champions.

blazindw
12-02-2007, 12:42 AM
Also -- there is no requirement to win your conference to make the BCS championship game. (See Nebraska and OU from several years back). I think there should be, but by the rules of the game, if the computers bump Georgia enough to make them number 2, then conference champs have nothing to do with it. (It's so so easy to pass a conference champion rule going forward, until they do, UGa and KU have arguments).

I think OU, USC and LSU all have fairly equal cases, honestly. I hope it's one of them that get in. 2 loss conference champions.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I think it's terrible that people DQ teams because they didn't win their conference. The BCS team is supposed to match the top 2 teams in the country, not the top 2 teams who won their conference. If they want to pass a requirement that you must win their conference to be eligible for the BCS game, do it. But until then, IMO, UGA and Kansas both have just as equal a case as the others because they are ranked #4 and #5. Otherwise, just rank the top conference champions only and whoever's ranked higher should be in. If writers won't stay within the rules (voting for the top teams in the country, not the top 2 teams that won their conference), it only exposes how much of a fraud the BCS system really is, and why we really should go to a playoff of some kind.

DevilAlumna
12-02-2007, 01:49 AM
Hawai'i has 10 minutes left overcome a 28-21 deficit and remain undefeated. They've woken up from their first quarter stupor to play some decent ball, and UW is hanging on to the lead for dear life. I think Hawaii might have the momentum to get just enough points on the board to make the BCS interesting, but they're certainly not making themselves look good while doing it.

Edit -- two min. later (8 min. to go) and the score is all even at 28.

ice-9
12-02-2007, 02:46 AM
Switching to an 8-team playoff just redistributes the problem. Instead of struggling to decide on the #2 team, you struggle to decide on the #8 team. And you then basically make the regular season meaningless, because most of the best teams only have a couple of true tests anyway. So basically you change the criteria for being a champion from being arguably the best over 4 months to being arguably one of the best over 3+ months and being the best or most fortunate over the last 3 weeks.

I agree it's a redistribution of the problem, but it makes a BIG difference. Voting on the top 2 teams in the country is a lot harder than voting for the top 8 teams. Even when there is debate as to who the #8 team is, chances are high that you've got your true national champ in the top 7. But when you're only deciding on 2 teams, the probability of missing out on the real champ is high...which is why you have so much gnashing of teeth with the current BCS system.

I think the whole thing is ridiculous, to the point where I don't even want to engage in the conversation any more. If football went to a playoff system, I'm confident fans will like it better. The BCS controversies do generate debate, sure, but it is of the negative kind.

captmojo
12-02-2007, 04:29 AM
HAWAII-35.......WASHINGTON-28

Colt deserves the Heisman. 447 passing?

They deserve a shot!

chattpanther
12-02-2007, 06:55 AM
Georgia in the BCS title game??? How do you figure since they weren't even playing in the SEC Championship game? Nobody's going to be playing for the National Championship without winning their own conference. This BCS mess is hilarious due to the parody among all of the football factories in the Top 10.

One reason to not take conference Championship games into account is for the reason that Ohio State will get in. They finished their season two weeks ago and didn't have to play a conference championship game. Who knows if they had to play Michigan twice what the result could have been. Also, Ohio State did not face a top 20 opponent all season (at game time in AP). The last time a National title game contender didn't play at least one team in the top 20 was 1936, the first year of the AP poll. According to CBSportsline, Ohio State won a conference rated No. 6 by Sagarin with a schedule rated No. 73 by BCS guru Jerry Palm. And this is the nation's best team?

Buckeye Devil
12-02-2007, 07:48 AM
simply because they won the SEC Championship. In 2001, Nebraska got into the national championship game without winning its conference and managed to get throttled by Miami. I don't see Kansas getting that same chance even though they have only lost once. A conference champion will makes its way into the title game even though it has 2 losses.

WVU finally lost after playing so sloppy in wins against the likes of Louisville and Cincinnati-there's 2 Big Easy powers! Even if they would have beat Pitt, they would not have deserved to play for it all after such a lackluster game against a 28 point dog.

cajundevil74
12-02-2007, 07:53 AM
First, Tim Tebow is the Heisman winner and is more deserving than anyone else - not really a contest, imo.

Second, college football needs a 4 week/16 team playoff system. Cancel the conference championships, give the top 16 teams an off week after an 11 game regular season; and determine who is the best team on the field. The current system makes me want to not watch college football at all.

Third, who wants to see OSU get trounced again? Although LSU's offense is not very explosive, OSU has played nobody and will get demolished in this game.

The BCS is an absolute joke and proof that money clouds judgment

cspan37421
12-02-2007, 08:10 AM
College presidents - and the networks - need to wake up to this mess that is the BCS. In the eyes of many, it is not a legit system for determining a national champion. Great thread thus far. Just to put in my 2 cents, -

I have no problem with a team that didn't win their conference championship getting in the title game. The conf championship isn't necessarily a building block to the national championship - as can be seen, in odd circumstances sometimes better teams are left out.

2nd, although Les Miles got excoriated for this, I do think a team that lost only in overtime is better than a team that lost in regulation, all else being equal. That it took triple overtime suggests to me that the teams were in essentially equally matched that day, and for ranking purposes, you'd probably get more realistic results judging the game to be a tie, rather than a loss, and putting them in the same bucket as other 2 loss teams.

3rd - Give Hawaii a shot. If Pitt can beat the "#2" team in the country, why assume Hawaii isn't at least as good as WVU? That the top teams keep falling - suggests to me that the distance between an undefeated Hawaii with weak schedule and a top team maybe isn't as great as in most years. Give them a shot.

4th - playoff is needed. Above poster is right, with 8 teams, it is very unlikely that the true best team is going to be left out of the national championship picture. My son and I are going to the Div 1 (aka FCS; formerly Div 1-AA) national championship game in 2 weeks. This is the division that includes the Appalachian State program. From what I can gather, they start with 16 teams, a mix of automatic and at-large bids. Now they're down to their final 4: App State, Richmond, Delaware, and So. Illinois. Scale back the schedule and add a 3 game playoff for the big boys.

Lavabe
12-02-2007, 08:37 AM
3rd - Give Hawaii a shot. If Pitt can beat the "#2" team in the country, why assume Hawaii isn't at least as good as WVU? That the top teams keep falling - suggests to me that the distance between an undefeated Hawaii with weak schedule and a top team maybe isn't as great as in most years. Give them a shot.

4th - playoff is needed. Above poster is right, with 8 teams, it is very unlikely that the true best team is going to be left out of the national championship picture. My son and I are going to the Div 1 (aka FCS; formerly Div 1-AA) national championship game in 2 weeks. This is the division that includes the Appalachian State program. From what I can gather, they start with 16 teams, a mix of automatic and at-large bids. Now they're down to their final 4: App State, Richmond, Delaware, and So. Illinois. Scale back the schedule and add a 3 game playoff for the big boys.

Agreed completely with Hawaii. I'm also hoping for a good bowl for UGA.

Funny, but wasn't the formation of the BCS formula supposed to take out the subjectivity of bowl selections? :rolleyes: Hey, Illinois might make it into a BCS bowl!

"Scale back:" A lot of folks with newly renovated stadia will not like scaling back possible dates off a schedule. On the other hand, it could be a big windfall for Div I football, with all teams sharing in the revenue of the playoff system ... I still don't think it would create enough immediate revenue to compensate for the loss of a game or two on the schedule. And there's the havoc that would be created by removing a game from complex conference schedules. Take away a conference game, or take away a non-conference game?

What's more pressing is for the change in the football scholarship system, sort of like what Ozzie cited the other day. That has all the potential of turning this whole thing upside down!

Go Blue Hens!
Cheers,
Lavabe

Highlander
12-02-2007, 08:58 AM
Submit your choices and justifications as well if you like.

Indoor66
12-02-2007, 08:59 AM
Submit your choices and justifications as well if you like.

HI v OSU because I say so.

JasonEvans
12-02-2007, 09:29 AM
I agree with you. I don't understand why LSU has now become the sexy pick to jump everyone. They were not as impressive as Va. Tech today. If they're better than Va. Tech, which I think they are and they proved it when they killed them this season, then they should have been ranked above VT before today. If the excuse is made about LSU's injuries, then put USC in the National Championship because they're healthy now. I think the polls have no credibility because they're changed for ridiculous reasons. I just want the championship to be played by the 2 best teams in the country right now.

If you want the 2 best teams in the country, then figure out a way for Georgia and USC to play. That would be the real national title game as those 2 teams are clearly (to me and most of the experts) the two best in the land right now.

I do not understand the massive LSU love-fest going on. Hey, I think they are a very good team but the discounting of their 2 losses because each were OT losses is just silly. Want to avoid an OT loss? Win the damn game in regulation!! It is not like either game was a LSU blowout followed by an imporbably comeback either. LSU has played a ton of really close games this season and they won some and lost some. LSU could easily have 3 or 4 losses this year. They have not been the most dominant team in the land, not by a longshot. Then again, their schedule has been murder and I sorta like them being rewarded a bit for that (all SEC schedules have been murder this year).

I actually have a big beef with TOSU getting into the national title game. Their schedule was a joke because the Big Ten sucked this season. I think Ohio State is, at best, the 5th or 6th best team in the land. But they get into the game automatically-- stinker!!

-Jason

Channing
12-02-2007, 09:31 AM
UGA

(a) because I am a homer, and (b) because there is no rule that says a title game participant must win their conference. All season we see cases where teams generally are only jumped if the team behind them puts a shellacking on some team while they played poorly. LSU did not whoop up on UT and UGA didnt even play)

v.

I dont care.

RepoMan
12-02-2007, 09:37 AM
4. LSU went to VT and destroyed the Hokies this year. That's why.

For what it is worth, the game was at LSU, not Blacksburg

Udaman
12-02-2007, 10:37 AM
The BCS is in shambles. I would be loving this...if it meant there was any chance for a playoff system to come out of it, but that is never going to happen (and if it can't happen after this year, then it truly never will). The facts, in my mind are simple:

1) No way is Ohio State the best team in the country. Yet they will be the #1 team after today in all polls. Crazy. They played in a terrible conference, with an embarrasin non-conference schedule. They lost at home to a mediocre at best Illinois team. But they are in the title game simply because they haven't played in 2 weeks.

2) Given that, I agree 100% with the Sports Reporters who say that if you are going to move Ohio State up without them playing, then you have to move Georgia up. They did nothing wrong. They have won 6 in a row. They played in the tougher section of the SEC. If Ohio State is #1, then Georgia should be #2.

3) NO WAY should LSU be #2. It's total B.S. if that happens. Not because they aren't good...but because this would mean they jump over 5 teams ahead of them right now. Honestly, at least 4 of them should stay ahead of them. Ohio State, Georgia, Kansas and Virginia Tech. Voters who pick LSU are completely changing their minds from a week ago, based on the perception of who should play in the title game, and that is unfair.

Check out these stats - in the past three games, LSU has given up a stagering 1,322 yards of offense. And this from a supposed superior defensive squad? They lost at home to Arkansas. They lost on the road to a decent, but not great Kentucky. They should have lost another 1-2 games.

Yesterday, Virginia Tech beat a solid Boston College team. They are probably the best team in the country right now. Their last five wins are at Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, at Virginia and neutral to Boston College. Yes, LSU blew them out in Week 2, but Va Tech is now a much better team. If they played next week, Va Tech wins.

I would even put either West Virginia or Kansas over LSU. Maybe even Missouri. West Virginia lost because they lost their star QB.

But the voters are going to affect the championship, and LSU will leapfrog everyone, then embarras Ohio State to win it all.

4) The sad thing is that if you had to rank the teams playing the best right now, I would put it: 1) USC 2) Va Tech 3) Georgia 4) Oklahoma. Based on their wins yesterday, I would put USC, Va Tech and Oklahoma ahead of LSU in the polls, but that won't happen.

5) If there was an 8 team playoff, this would all be decided on the field. You would have Ohio State v. Hawaii, USC v LSU, Va Tech v. Oklahoma and Georgia v. Kansas.

6) Who know who is going to the BCS bowls. It looks like the Rose bowl might actually reach down and take Illinois to replace Ohio State, basically smoking Missouri and Florida in the process.

Ughh.

ugadevil
12-02-2007, 10:41 AM
If you want the 2 best teams in the country, then figure out a way for Georgia and USC to play. That would be the real national title game as those 2 teams are clearly (to me and most of the experts) the two best in the land right now.
-Jason


The ironic thing is that there is a good possibility of that happening, in the Rose Bowl. Maybe the winner of that game could win convincing enough to earn some votes for #1 in the polls. I know I've already put in my request for tickets to Pasadena.

A-Tex Devil
12-02-2007, 10:45 AM
I'm with the group that says the game might as well be Hawaii and tOSU at this point. Without a playoff -- I have real real problems with a 2 loss team playing for the naitonal championship - regardless of schedule. If parity in college football is getting to the point where we will regularly start seeing 2 loss teams having a shot at the title, a 4 or 8 team playoff is necessary because there are simply always going to be a BUNCH of 2 loss teams. This is MUCH MUCH worse than the old bowl allegiences system.

Say what you want about tOSU. I think they are the 5th best team in the nation at best. But they won their BCS conference and only lost 1 game. That's about as objective as it can get in this mess. Hawaii beat the schedule they had in front of them as well, including a BCS winner from the year before.

So if we have the same system going forward, in the annual tweaks to the BCS they always make, add these to next year:
1. No 2 loss team can beat a top 10 undefeated team from any conference into the title game.
2. BCS game must be 2 conference champions -- unless the teams are from the same conference. (This picks up the tOSU/Mich scenario from last year which I wouldn't have had a problem with had Florida not been involved. But also imagine if Georgia and LSU each had one loss, but Georgia lost the tiebreaker to a 1 conference loss Tennessee and didn't make the SEC title game. An LSU Georgia game would make sense there I think.)

There would still be problems, but it would be tOSU and Hawaii this year. And all the 2 loss teams complaining that they are better? Beat your schedules!!

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 10:52 AM
1. If you're trying to pit the two best teams in the country, then you absolutely have to take winning your conference into account. Because they did not win their conference (or division), the only way Georgia is one of the two best teams in America (looking at the entirety of the season, which we have to do) is if Tennesee is #1. Not winning your conference means you aren't the best team in your conference, let alone the country.

2. Assuming that because Ohio State hasn't beaten a good team means they can't beat a good team is illogical. The fact is, the Buckeyes beat teams that are better than LSU's losses, and better than one of Georgia's and USC's. Ohio State avoided losing two games it should've won, and the other teams can't say that.

3. For what it's worth, here's a column on why it's stupid to believe that the BCS has to put the two best teams in the country against one another. I remember reading it last December about the Michigan-Florida debate. http://www.slate.com/id/2154861/

Olympic Fan
12-02-2007, 10:53 AM
I love the mess ... maybe a few more people will wake up and see the absurdity of the current system.

And please don't talk to me about "protecting the integrity of the regular season" -- what integrity? When you can have a team like Ohio State, which dodges all possible threat in its non-conference schedule, then can't even sweep the weakest of the BCS conference (and this season, the Big Ten is BY FAR the weakest league) getting a pass to the title game while LSU, which played a killer schedule, might get passed over because they happened to play one of the nation's toughest schedules ... there's a basic unfairness there. I would argue that there are at least 10 teams that could have finished 11-1 with Ohio State's schedule -- and 20 that would have finished 12-0 against Hawaii's.

If you ask me who I think will be in the title game, I'd guess Ohio State and either LSU or Georgia.

If you ask me who I think SHOULD be in the title game, I'd say the nation's two best teams ... and IMHO that's Southern Cal (now that they are healthy again) and LSU.

blazindw
12-02-2007, 10:54 AM
The BCS is in shambles. I would be loving this...if it meant there was any chance for a playoff system to come out of it, but that is never going to happen (and if it can't happen after this year, then it truly never will). The facts, in my mind are simple:

1) No way is Ohio State the best team in the country. Yet they will be the #1 team after today in all polls. Crazy. They played in a terrible conference, with an embarrasin non-conference schedule. They lost at home to a mediocre at best Illinois team. But they are in the title game simply because they haven't played in 2 weeks.

2) Given that, I agree 100% with the Sports Reporters who say that if you are going to move Ohio State up without them playing, then you have to move Georgia up. They did nothing wrong. They have won 6 in a row. They played in the tougher section of the SEC. If Ohio State is #1, then Georgia should be #2.

3) NO WAY should LSU be #2. It's total B.S. if that happens. Not because they aren't good...but because this would mean they jump over 5 teams ahead of them right now. Honestly, at least 4 of them should stay ahead of them. Ohio State, Georgia, Kansas and Virginia Tech. Voters who pick LSU are completely changing their minds from a week ago, based on the perception of who should play in the title game, and that is unfair.

Check out these stats - in the past three games, LSU has given up a stagering 1,322 yards of offense. And this from a supposed superior defensive squad? They lost at home to Arkansas. They lost on the road to a decent, but not great Kentucky. They should have lost another 1-2 games.

Yesterday, Virginia Tech beat a solid Boston College team. They are probably the best team in the country right now. Their last five wins are at Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, at Virginia and neutral to Boston College. Yes, LSU blew them out in Week 2, but Va Tech is now a much better team. If they played next week, Va Tech wins.

I would even put either West Virginia or Kansas over LSU. Maybe even Missouri. West Virginia lost because they lost their star QB.

But the voters are going to affect the championship, and LSU will leapfrog everyone, then embarras Ohio State to win it all.

4) The sad thing is that if you had to rank the teams playing the best right now, I would put it: 1) USC 2) Va Tech 3) Georgia 4) Oklahoma. Based on their wins yesterday, I would put USC, Va Tech and Oklahoma ahead of LSU in the polls, but that won't happen.

5) If there was an 8 team playoff, this would all be decided on the field. You would have Ohio State v. Hawaii, USC v LSU, Va Tech v. Oklahoma and Georgia v. Kansas.

6) Who know who is going to the BCS bowls. It looks like the Rose bowl might actually reach down and take Illinois to replace Ohio State, basically smoking Missouri and Florida in the process.

Ughh.

I agree with every point you just made, except for #6. Florida cannot get hosed in the process. If UGA is picked for either the BCS title game or the Sugar, then Florida cannot be picked for a BCS game. Conferences can have no more than 2 teams in BCS games. Either Kansas or Mizzou will be likely left out. Here's how I think it will play out (not what I think should happen, but what I think will happen):

BCS - Ohio Snake (Big 10 Champ)-LSU (SEC Champ)
Rose - USC (Pac 10 champ)-Illinois (1st At-Large)
Sugar - UGA (2nd At-Large)-Hawaii (4th At-Large)
Fiesta - OU (Big 12 Champ)-Kansas (3rd At-Large)
Orange - V.Tech (ACC Champ)-WVU (Big East Champ)

Even though the Fiesta would have 2 Big 12 teams, I don't think the Fiesta will pass on Kansas, creating another Big 12 "Championship". I, however, wouldn't be surprised if WVU and Kansas switched. The one thing I do know, though, is that Mizzou played their way into the Cotton Bowl last night.

ugadevil
12-02-2007, 11:00 AM
1. If you're trying to pit the two best teams in the country, then you absolutely have to take winning your conference into account. Because they did not win their conference (or division), the only way Georgia is one of the two best teams in America (looking at the entirety of the season, which we have to do) is if Tennesee is #1. Not winning your conference means you aren't the best team in your conference, let alone the country.


If winning the conference is so important, why not Oklahoma over LSU? Oklahoma just defeated the number 1 team in the country, and I thought they did it in much more convincing fashion than LSU beat UT. Oklahoma has two losses, same as LSU...and Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech when Sam Bradford was injured, (I don't think that a good excuse because you win with who you've got, but I keep hearing about how LSU had to deal with key injuries).

I personally think LSU should have been the best team in the country all year. They have arguably the most talent, and there schedule was much more favorable this year than last year. All they needed was a half-way competent coach...but I think they just haven't been very impressive.

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 11:05 AM
If winning the conference is so important, why not Oklahoma over LSU? Oklahoma just defeated the number 1 team in the country, and I thought they did it in much more convincing fashion than LSU beat UT. Oklahoma has two losses, same as LSU...and Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech when Sam Bradford was injured, (I don't think that a good excuse because you win with who you've got, but I keep hearing about how LSU had to deal with key injuries).

I personally think LSU should have been the best team in the country all year. They have arguably the most talent, and there schedule was much more favorable this year than last year. All they needed was a half-way competent coach...but I think they just haven't been very impressive.

At least at that point--the LSU-OU debate--you're deciding between conference champions, and I agree that OU has a decent argument. My point wasn't that winning your conference title is the only thing to look for, but rather that it does need to be looked at. What do we know about Georgia? We know that they aren't the best team in the SEC, and are probably the third best (and yes, I'm taking the whole season into account). So, how can you be one of the top two teams in American when you're the third best team in the SEC?

Zeb
12-02-2007, 11:12 AM
For fans of college basketball to argue that college football is better off without a playoff system just seems horribly perverse. The NCAA Div 1 basketball tournament is perhaps the most popular, successful, dramatic finish to its season of any sport, amateur or professional.

Dan Wetzel did a much better job making the case for a 16 game college football playoff than I ever could. I think the system he proposes would be awesome--I would probably watch every game I could, and I currently watch only 1-2 bowl games a year.

The Wetzel Plan (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

Here's a follow up to the column based on its overwhelmingly positive response.

The People's Voice (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-voice112907&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

Wander
12-02-2007, 11:15 AM
The LSU lovefest doesn't make sense. Fine, they lost in triple overtime, but it's not like it was to national powers. They lost to Arkansas at home, and Kentucky. Both of those teams are decent, but they're not great. LSU has worse losses than Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Kansas, Missouri, maybe Georgia, and, of course, Hawaii. USC and Oklahoma have worse losses than all of those teams as well, although at least Oklahoma's weren't at home.

And don't give me this nonsense about needing to win your conference. Georgia lost just as many games in the SEC as LSU did. But because the SEC East is far superior to the SEC West, Georgia got caught in a numbers crunch that left them out of the SEC title game and LSU didn't.

ugadevil
12-02-2007, 11:18 AM
At least at that point--the LSU-OU debate--you're deciding between conference champions, and I agree that OU has a decent argument. My point wasn't that winning your conference title is the only thing to look for, but rather that it does need to be looked at. What do we know about Georgia? We know that they aren't the best team in the SEC, and are probably the third best (and yes, I'm taking the whole season into account). So, how can you be one of the top two teams in American when you're the third best team in the SEC?


I can't say that LSU is for sure better than UGA simply because they haven't played. Put them on a neutral field and I doubt LSU would be favored by much. LSU has the title of conference champions but they have two conference losses, which is the same as UGA, and the two never played. UGA as the 3rd best team in the SEC? Who's 2nd? Arkansas? Florida? If you think it's Tennessee, that's fine. Good thing they came out and played their best game in years against UGA and then decided they didn't want to play like that for the rest of the season.

ugadevil
12-02-2007, 11:24 AM
Georgia. Because I want to go.

A-Tex Devil
12-02-2007, 11:35 AM
At least at that point--the LSU-OU debate--you're deciding between conference champions, and I agree that OU has a decent argument. My point wasn't that winning your conference title is the only thing to look for, but rather that it does need to be looked at. What do we know about Georgia? We know that they aren't the best team in the SEC, and are probably the third best (and yes, I'm taking the whole season into account). So, how can you be one of the top two teams in American when you're the third best team in the SEC?

While I still have LSU ahead of Georgia in the standings I've made up in my head, I don't think you can say LSU is "better" than Georgia because LSU won the SEC. They had the exact same regular season success. LSU just lost to the "right" teams.

So let's throw this hypothetical out there -- LSU beats Kentucky, but loses to Auburn. LSU would lose a tiebreaker to Auburn, so the SEC championship would be Auburn Tennessee, two 3 loss teams, and the two 2 loss teams, UGa and LSU are left in the cold. Again, LSU had a shot at the conference championship because they lost to the "right" teams. Is that some kind of mad genious planning by Les Miles? Or dumb luck?

chattpanther
12-02-2007, 11:37 AM
What did Ohio State do that is any different that what Georgia did? Except not win 6 games in a row like Georgia or beat a top 20 team. So if you even talk about Ohio State in the Championship game then there is no discussion about any other team other than Georgia. If you think Ohio State is not deserving then it is fine to bring LSU and OU into the mix.

cspan37421
12-02-2007, 11:46 AM
I may need to take back one of my comments, that Hawaii should get a shot. Here's why I'm having second thoughts about it: no recent poll I've seen, computer or human, puts them in the top 8, let alone the top 2. Strength of schedule kills them, but IIRC they also have a lot of close wins. They're not that great, just good enough to beat the teams on their schedule. I guess that's the rap on TOSU too.

I am a big believer in (some) computer polls vs. human polls. I believe that if progammed with the right "factors" to consider, they are more reliable and consistent than human polls. The coaches really only know their own schedule, and sportswriters can't watch every game (not to mention their regional bias). So a systematic approach makes a lot of sense to me. From the little bit I know, I like Jeff Sagarin's ratings - when I see terms like Bayesian, and note his two rankings based on whether W/L is everything, or if margin of victory matters, I infer he has put some serious thought into it. And his poll does not give Hawaii that high a ranking, last I saw.

So I suppose that if I were making the choice, they'd be left out. But part of me thinks they should have the chance to prove themselves, and the venue to do that would be a playoff system in which they'd get an at-large bid or maybe an automatic bid for being undefeated. It would need to be organized so that there would not be an incentive to rack up wins against lesser teams. Usually that's a bigger problem than including teams with merely good records against killer competition. JMO.

rthomas
12-02-2007, 11:49 AM
Would you guys quit shouting? My head is killing me.

mr. synellinden
12-02-2007, 11:51 AM
is the game I would like to see. I think they were the best two teams in the country at the start of the season, they are currently the best two teams in the country, they won respectively the two best (in my opinion) conferences in the country and they are both very close to being undefeated this season.

LSU is 2 3OT games from being undefeated in what has to be considered the best conference in college football.

USC lost on the road to an Oregon team that should be playing for the national title if they didn't lose their QB to injury - and in that game I think USC was playing without Booty. USC's loss to Stanford is really hard to overlook, but they were playing without Booty and they were ridiculous 4th and 17 and 4th and goal plays away from winning. Since no team has a real beef with being overlooked, I'm going with USC because they have the most talent and best coach in college football (IMO).

Ohio St. doesn't impress me but they'd be a third choice.

My guess is the actual game will pit Ohio St. against LSU. - Voters will leapfrog LSU over Georgia.

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 11:58 AM
I may need to take back one of my comments, that Hawaii should get a shot. Here's why I'm having second thoughts about it: no recent poll I've seen, computer or human, puts them in the top 8, let alone the top 2. Strength of schedule kills them, but IIRC they also have a lot of close wins. They're not that great, just good enough to beat the teams on their schedule. I guess that's the rap on TOSU too.

Ohio State did outscore its opponents 346-111 this season (+235). It's closest win was 7 points against Michigan State, but the Spartans scored two late defensive TDs to make it that close (it was 24-0 into the 4th quarter).

Hawaii outscored its opponents 554-290 this season (+264). They had several close calls, and a couple real blowouts (63-6, 66-10).

So, if you're stating that OSU had a lot of close wins and just got by, that's really not true at all.

Stray Gator
12-02-2007, 12:08 PM
It seems to me that one reason all of the "candidates" for the #2 slot to face Ohio State in the BCS Championship Game are lobbying even harder than usual is because most people who follow college football believe the prospects are very good that whichever of those candidates gets the nod will beat the Buckeyes. What that tells me is that the most compelling evidence of the fallacy in the BCS system is not the disagreement about which of those teams should move up to #2, but the fact that Ohio State will be ranked #1 and will be playing for the national title when most fans outside the Big Ten don't believe Ohio State has established that it is one of the top 4 or 5 teams in the nation. I'd like to believe that all this controversy will hasten the day when we have a playoff in Division I to determine a legitimate champion; but there's little reason for optimism on that issue.

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 12:19 PM
One reason to not take conference Championship games into account is for the reason that Ohio State will get in. They finished their season two weeks ago and didn't have to play a conference championship game. Who knows if they had to play Michigan twice what the result could have been. Also, Ohio State did not face a top 20 opponent all season (at game time in AP). The last time a National title game contender didn't play at least one team in the top 20 was 1936, the first year of the AP poll. According to CBSportsline, Ohio State won a conference rated No. 6 by Sagarin with a schedule rated No. 73 by BCS guru Jerry Palm. And this is the nation's best team?

I assume you got this "fact" from the Dennis Dodd article posted this morning (since you cite to cbssportsline). Dodd did not say that no National Title game contender has failed to play a top-20 ranked team since 1936. Dodd did say that Ohio State has not gone through a season in which it didn't play a top-20 ranked team since 1936.

From the article: "If Ohio State gets in, it will be playing in the Big Easy because of the big easy. It did not face a top 20 opponent all season (at game time in AP). The last time it didn't play at least one team in the top 20 was 1936, the first year of the AP poll." (emphasis added).

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 12:34 PM
I love the mess ... maybe a few more people will wake up and see the absurdity of the current system.

And please don't talk to me about "protecting the integrity of the regular season" -- what integrity? When you can have a team like Ohio State, which dodges all possible threat in its non-conference schedule, then can't even sweep the weakest of the BCS conference (and this season, the Big Ten is BY FAR the weakest league) getting a pass to the title game while LSU, which played a killer schedule, might get passed over because they happened to play one of the nation's toughest schedules ... there's a basic unfairness there. I would argue that there are at least 10 teams that could have finished 11-1 with Ohio State's schedule -- and 20 that would have finished 12-0 against Hawaii's.

If you ask me who I think will be in the title game, I'd guess Ohio State and either LSU or Georgia.

If you ask me who I think SHOULD be in the title game, I'd say the nation's two best teams ... and IMHO that's Southern Cal (now that they are healthy again) and LSU.

You're going to have to explain that one. I assume you have some sort of evidence of the Buckeyes "dodging" a tough OOC schedule. If not, that's a ridiculous statement.

In recent years the Buckeyes have had a home-and-home series with Texas, and starting next year they have one with USC. After that, Miami. This is hardly "dodging". The OSU-Washington game this year was the second in a home-and-home scheduled almost a decade ago when Washington was a top-10 program. The first game of the series was in 2003. At the time it was scheduled, I'm sure Andy Geiger and John Cooper felt that the Huskies would be a good series.

cspan37421
12-02-2007, 12:42 PM
Ohio State did outscore its opponents 346-111 this season (+235). It's closest win was 7 points against Michigan State, but the Spartans scored two late defensive TDs to make it that close (it was 24-0 into the 4th quarter).

Hawaii outscored its opponents 554-290 this season (+264). They had several close calls, and a couple real blowouts (63-6, 66-10).

So, if you're stating that OSU had a lot of close wins and just got by, that's really not true at all.

I meant to only apply the close win argument to Hawaii; strength of schedule to both Hawaii and TOSU. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Addendum: By Sagarin, TOSU is 0-0 against current top 10 teams, 2-1 vs 11-30. Also note he has Oklahoma #1. OU and TOSU have SOS ratings of 59 and 60, respectively. He has Kansas #3 (SOS 88) and Hawaii #16 (SOS 137). More fuel for the fire, I guess!

Olympic Fan
12-02-2007, 12:50 PM
You're going to have to explain that one. I assume you have some sort of evidence of the Buckeyes "dodging" a tough OOC schedule. If not, that's a ridiculous statement.

In recent years the Buckeyes have had a home-and-home series with Texas, and starting next year they have one with USC. After that, Miami. This is hardly "dodging". The OSU-Washington game this year was the second in a home-and-home scheduled almost a decade ago when Washington was a top-10 program. The first game of the series was in 2003. At the time it was scheduled, I'm sure Andy Geiger and John Cooper felt that the Huskies would be a good series.

In the past, Ohio State has played some good opponents -- usually one good outside opponent a year. And usually, the Big Ten offers plenty of quality competition.

Not this season.

Washington has been mediocre or worse since 2000 ... to suggest that's your "big time" game and you couldn't get out of it ... well, it sounds a little weaker when your other three non-confrerence games are Youngstown State, Akron and Kent State -- all at home.

It's funny how teams are able to adjust their schedules for various reasons, but when they just happen to get stuck with a weak (and easy) schedule, we here "Oh, the schedules were set long ago and we couldn't change them!"

I know the argument that there's political pressure to play in-state schools, but Ohio State had been doing fine playing one such opponent a year. To schedule THREE in-state patsies to go along with such a mediocre "big time" opponent smacks of dodging quality non-conference opponents.

And to do it in a year when the Big Ten is as weak as it's ever been (these things go in cycles, I'm not ripping on the Big Ten, except to say that this year, it's demonstratably the weakest BCS conference -- most years, it's very solid) ... well, to me that's not a very good resume for a national title team.

cspan37421
12-02-2007, 12:50 PM
Interesting:

Under Sagarin's Elo Chess (margin of victory irrelevant), his #1/2 matchup would be Virginia Tech vs. LSU. Under Predictor (margin of victory does matter), it would be Oklahoma vs. Florida.

When you average the two, as he does, you get Oklahoma - Ohio State. So just using his data you can make a case for 5 teams for the 2 slots. Bring on the playoff!

chattpanther
12-02-2007, 12:53 PM
I assume you got this "fact" from the Dennis Dodd article posted this morning (since you cite to cbssportsline). Dodd did not say that no National Title game contender has failed to play a top-20 ranked team since 1936. Dodd did say that Ohio State has not gone through a season in which it didn't play a top-20 ranked team since 1936.

From the article: "If Ohio State gets in, it will be playing in the Big Easy because of the big easy. It did not face a top 20 opponent all season (at game time in AP). The last time it didn't play at least one team in the top 20 was 1936, the first year of the AP poll." (emphasis added).

Thanks for clearing that up and I know that a lot of "fact" from CBSportsine is basically opinion but I did think it was interesting how easy Ohio State has had it this year.

chattpanther
12-02-2007, 12:59 PM
This just posted on CBSportsline front page:


BREAKING NEWS
Ohio State, LSU headed for title showdown
The Buckeyes and Tigers are 1-2 in the latest coaches poll and near locks to meet for the BCS championship in New Orleans, Dennis Dodd reports. 'This virtually nails it,' BCS guru Jerry Palm says.

feldspar
12-02-2007, 01:13 PM
For fans of college basketball to argue that college football is better off without a playoff system just seems horribly perverse. The NCAA Div 1 basketball tournament is perhaps the most popular, successful, dramatic finish to its season of any sport, amateur or professional.

Dan Wetzel did a much better job making the case for a 16 game college football playoff than I ever could. I think the system he proposes would be awesome--I would probably watch every game I could, and I currently watch only 1-2 bowl games a year.

I agree. I currently watch, on average, probably half of one college football game throughout the whole season, and that includes the "bowls." Were there to be a playoff introduced, I'd be much more likely to actually pay attention during the regular season and watch virtually all of the tournament.

But, as the system is now, I refuse to be sucked into the money-grubbing bowl system. I won't be one of their dupes.

norduck
12-02-2007, 01:54 PM
This just posted on CBSportsline front page:


BREAKING NEWS
Ohio State, LSU headed for title showdown
The Buckeyes and Tigers are 1-2 in the latest coaches poll and near locks to meet for the BCS championship in New Orleans, Dennis Dodd reports. 'This virtually nails it,' BCS guru Jerry Palm says.


Ohio State will beat LSU. Wells,having time to get healthy again,will run roughshod over them,just like McFadden from Arkansas did.

Stray Gator
12-02-2007, 02:11 PM
Ohio State will beat LSU. Wells,having time to get healthy again,will run roughshod over them,just like McFadden from Arkansas did.

If Dorsey and some of LSU's players who have been sidelined or playing with nagging injuries can use that time to get healthy again, too, I expect LSU to win. Some people are pointing to the fact that LSU's defense gave up a lot of yardage in their past few games; but go back and look at how LSU's defense fared when they had a full contingent of healthy players on both sides of the ball in the first half of the season. Keep in mind that LSU won the SEC Championship Game last night without their best defensive lineman (Dorsey) or their starting QB (Flynn), and with other key players (Doucet) able to provide only spot duty. Also keep in mind that LSU will be playing against OSU in New Orleans. On a fast surface.

And FWIW, I don't think Wells is comparable to McFadden.

OldSchool
12-02-2007, 02:12 PM
I think it is great that a two-loss team will be in the title game. It is sickening the way the media hypes undefeated or one-loss teams that play weaker schedules over teams in tougher conferences. Better teams in the SEC or the ACC beat up on each other while Ohio State(!) is proclaimed the best team in the land. Also, teams that happen to have their tougher games later in the season are made out to be better than are in the earlier polls.

Ohio State will be highly motivated to play better than the historic embarassment they were against Florida last year, but I expect they will still be spanked by LSU in the title game. What would Ohio State's record be if they had to play an SEC schedule? An ACC schedule? Does anyone believe Ohio State would be playing in the national title game if either were the case?

Hawaii is being hyped as a BCS team, and some are even saying they should get a shot at the national title. But Hawaii struggled to get past the last-place team in the Pac-10 last night. What would Hawaii's record be like if it played in the Pac-10?

DevilAlumna
12-02-2007, 02:21 PM
Looks like LSU might be playing without their regular season defensive coordinator -- according to the Lincoln Journal Star, Bo Pelini will be announced as the Husker head coach in about 45 min.

http://www.journalstar.com/blog/huskers.php

Lavabe
12-02-2007, 03:19 PM
Hawaii is being hyped as a BCS team, and some are even saying they should get a shot at the national title. But Hawaii struggled to get past the last-place team in the Pac-10 last night. What would Hawaii's record be like if it played in the Pac-10?

Remember Boise St?;)

Go Hawaii!
Cheers,
Lavabe

Duvall
12-02-2007, 03:33 PM
Hawaii is being hyped as a BCS team, and some are even saying they should get a shot at the national title. But Hawaii struggled to get past the last-place team in the Pac-10 last night. What would Hawaii's record be like if it played in the Pac-10?

The Pac-10 champion beat that same Washington team by 3 points.

cajundevil74
12-02-2007, 04:08 PM
Norduck - remember last year - OSU was supposed to beat Florida but SEC speed overwhelmed OSU. Although LSU's offense is lacking and their D can be exposed - with 5 weeks to scheme and heal - expect the LSU defense to dominate OSU.

The Wetzel Plan is great, but this year, I think it would end up with three of the four teams in the final four being from the SEC.

throatybeard
12-02-2007, 04:18 PM
ESPN's front page poll today is "are OSU and LSU the two best teams in college FB?"

The only states polling "yes" are LA, OH, and MS is in at 51% yes. (There are some LSU fans in the Pine Belt).

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Norduck - remember last year - OSU was supposed to beat Florida but SEC speed overwhelmed OSU. Although LSU's offense is lacking and their D can be exposed - with 5 weeks to scheme and heal - expect the LSU defense to dominate OSU.

The Wetzel Plan is great, but this year, I think it would end up with three of the four teams in the final four being from the SEC.

And remember in 2002-03 when the NFL-speed of Miami was supposed to run Ohio State off the field?

It was the speed of two players last year that killed OSU (both DEs). Other than that matchup, there wasn't a speed difference; at least not a noticeable one (the fastest guy on the field was a Buckeye). Florida had a better gameplan on both sides of the ball and that's why they won. Les Miles is a terrible gameplanner, and, no matter what he says, the Michigan rumors will carry on until the game unless he signs an extension with LSU or the Wolverines hire a coach.

Ohio State will enter this game the way Florida did last year and the way the Buckeyes did in '03--as big underdogs. I think that plays well for them. And, don't be fooled, this Ohio State team is much better than last year's edition. They're as good on offense, and better on defense and special teams.

HK Dukie
12-02-2007, 04:53 PM
The best two teams RIGHT NOW are UGA and USC. They are on a roll but I guess the world will never find out thanks to the joys of the BCS. If you have watched these two teams play in the past 4-6 weeks you would agree.

Wouldn't a great eight team playoff be...

Ohio State
LSU
UGA
Oklahoma
USC
Kansas
Virginia Tech
Hawaii

Then all these arguements could be put to rest.

(such as...) If UGA had lost to Vandy instead of Tenn they would have been in the SEC title game. They were actually tied with Tenn but lost the tie breaker. Does anyone really think that on a neutral field, the odds makers would give Tenn the edge? No way...UGA became a much better team after the whole "unsportsmanlike" TD celebration vs UF and started crushing teams.

(or such as...) If we hadn't changed the overtime rules, LSU would have two ties and no losses and obviously be in the title game.

etc etc

Get a playoff already! This would be one of the best years in college football ever, instead it is a joke.

Highlander
12-02-2007, 05:31 PM
Get a playoff already! This would be one of the best years in college football ever, instead it is a joke.

I think it is interesting that people feel very strongly for a playoff in football, while other people feel very strongly against one in baseball. Not saying this was you, NYCDukie. Just remembering a debate going the other way a few months ago when a different sport was involved.

A-Tex Devil
12-02-2007, 05:52 PM
They're as good on offense, and better on defense and special teams.

OSU as good on offense as last year? No way. Florida game aside, last year's OSU team was an offensive juggernaut. Case in point -- look at score of the Michigan game this year vs last after Michigan lost 2 of its best defensive players.

Defense and special teams, sure. But this OSU offense is simply good, reminiscent of 2002. Last year's OSU offense was a juggernaut.

Any of the 8 teams listed above by NYC Dukie can beat any of the other 8 teams on a given Saturday. Another reason to play it off or go back to the old system. We've tried to come up with a game pitting the two best teams, but it's just as subjective as before and marginalizes the other bowls.

Edited to say I argued this with friends before. Imagine 2004 -- where there were 4 (FOUR!!) undefeated teams at the end of the year. We ended up with a USC/OU blowout. Michigan-Texas was a good game, but does anyone honestly remember the other games? What if they did it old school instead:

Rose - USC-Michigan
Orange - Oklahoma-Va Tech
Sugar - Auburn-Texas
Fiesta - Utah-Cal (I'm kicking Pittsburgh out because the Big East was awful that year)

That would have been one hell of a day of football.

cajundevil74
12-02-2007, 05:58 PM
rockymtn devil - you can't be serious. Wow! We watched a different game last January then. Even the OSU players couldn't believe the team speed they faced. Florida's D-linemen were faster than Troy Smith - running him down. And the Gator receivers could not be covered by the OSU LB's or secondary.

kmspeaks
12-02-2007, 06:54 PM
I think it is great that a two-loss team will be in the title game. It is sickening the way the media hypes undefeated or one-loss teams that play weaker schedules over teams in tougher conferences. Better teams in the SEC or the ACC beat up on each other while Ohio State(!) is proclaimed the best team in the land. Also, teams that happen to have their tougher games later in the season are made out to be better than are in the earlier polls.

Ohio State will be highly motivated to play better than the historic embarassment they were against Florida last year, but I expect they will still be spanked by LSU in the title game. What would Ohio State's record be if they had to play an SEC schedule? An ACC schedule? Does anyone believe Ohio State would be playing in the national title game if either were the case?

Hawaii is being hyped as a BCS team, and some are even saying they should get a shot at the national title. But Hawaii struggled to get past the last-place team in the Pac-10 last night. What would Hawaii's record be like if it played in the Pac-10?


Putting the LSU arguements aside, I too have an issue with Ohio State in the national title game. Why is it that Kansas and Hawaii get excluded on the basis of playing a weak schedule but Ohio State gets a pass?

I've had enough of this BCS mess. Good thing it's basketball season!

rockymtn devil
12-02-2007, 06:56 PM
rockymtn devil - you can't be serious. Wow! We watched a different game last January then. Even the OSU players couldn't believe the team speed they faced. Florida's D-linemen were faster than Troy Smith - running him down. And the Gator receivers could not be covered by the OSU LB's or secondary.

I said that Florida's DEs did give the OSU tackles problems because of their speed, however outside of that, there was no huge speed difference. The WRs were open because Ohio State--inexcusably--decided to rush only four and drop seven into coverage (despite the fact that Chris Leak was a turnover machine when pressured) and the recievers were eventually able to get open. Like I said in my earlier post, it was a gameplan issue. I watched the game from 35 yard line, 7 rows up, in the "Florida" section (if there was such a thing at that game) and none of the Gator fans sitting around me thought it was an issue of speed either.

The "Southern Speed" myth has been debunked, although it still lives on. Here's a good summary of how.

http://www.slate.com/id/2060524/

In terms of this year's offense vs. last year's, the Buckeyes average 32 points a game this year. They averaged 36 last year. That's a little more than a field goal worse this year, which isn't all that big. The running game is more reliable, and the recievers are better. Also, because Boeckman has a better arm than Troy Smith, they were able to stretch the field much better this year. The 2002 team? Averaged 29 points a game.

feldspar
12-02-2007, 07:04 PM
I think it is interesting that people feel very strongly for a playoff in football, while other people feel very strongly against one in baseball. Not saying this was you, NYCDukie. Just remembering a debate going the other way a few months ago when a different sport was involved.

Well, it's not hard to see why.

In college football and baseball, you've got the two complete different ends of the spectrum.

Football = roughly 12-13 regular season games. Championship teams decided by a computer.

Baseball = 160-something regular season games. Playoff teams decided by standings, champion decided by playoff system.

I honestly wouldn't be at all opposed to baseball crowning the AL and NL champions solely based on standings, then having the two battle it out in a longer playoff series (11 games?) to determine the winner. Long enough that each team can go through their pitching rotation at least once through.

But, with college football in years like this, you don't have a season long enough to determine the "true" worthy teams with just a dozen games.

Highlander
12-02-2007, 07:33 PM
Here are your matchups:

Title game - LSU vs. Ohio State.
Orange - VTech vs. Kansas
Fiesta - Oklahoma vs. WVU
Sugar - Georgia vs. Hawaii
Rose - USC vs. Illinois

Missouri, #1 in the nation until yesterday, played the 26th toughest schedule in the country, and lost twice... to the same team - Oklahoma. Kansas, who didn't play Oklahoma at all, and had a strength of schedule in triple digits, lost head to head to Missouri LAST WEEK. Yet Kansas is in the BCS and Missouri is not.

Missouri got penalized for playing in the BCS title game. Now they don't even get a BCS game.

Also, What is up with LSU going from #7 to #2 in the standings in a week, despite teams above them winning their conference championships? It just shows that ACC gets no respect when it comes to the BCS. VTech was ranked ahead of LSU last week, they won their conference championship yesterday, yet LSU saunters right on by them into the national title game. And yes I know about the head-to-head win early in the season. It obviously didn't factor into polls last week, so why does it all of a sudden come into play now?

Also, why VTech and WVU aren't playing each other in the Orange bowl is beyond me.

norduck
12-02-2007, 07:58 PM
I said that Florida's DEs did give the OSU tackles problems because of their speed, however outside of that, there was no huge speed difference. The WRs were open because Ohio State--inexcusably--decided to rush only four and drop seven into coverage (despite the fact that Chris Leak was a turnover machine when pressured) and the recievers were eventually able to get open. Like I said in my earlier post, it was a gameplan issue. I watched the game from 35 yard line, 7 rows up, in the "Florida" section (if there was such a thing at that game) and none of the Gator fans sitting around me thought it was an issue of speed either.

The "Southern Speed" myth has been debunked, although it still lives on. Here's a good summary of how.

http://www.slate.com/id/2060524/

In terms of this year's offense vs. last year's, the Buckeyes average 32 points a game this year. They averaged 36 last year. That's a little more than a field goal worse this year, which isn't all that big. The running game is more reliable, and the recievers are better. Also, because Boeckman has a better arm than Troy Smith, they were able to stretch the field much better this year. The 2002 team? Averaged 29 points a game.

Not making excuses, but Ginn would have made an entire difference in that game, had he not gone down to injury celebrating the 90+ yds TD return. Troy Smith also lost his favorite receiver on that play.

FWIW: I also think "Beanie" Wells is very capable of having a McFadden type game against LSU.

Channing
12-02-2007, 08:06 PM
Not making excuses, but Ginn would have made an entire difference in that game, had he not gone down to injury celebrating the 90+ yds TD return. Troy Smith also lost his favorite receiver on that play.

FWIW: I also think "Beanie" Wells is very capable of having a McFadden type game against LSU.

I have watched McFadden play and I have watched Wells play. Wells is a terrific back . . . but I dont think there is anyone else in the NCAA capable of having a McFadden type day. In my opinion McFadden was the best player in the NCAA this year.

cajundevil74
12-02-2007, 09:08 PM
Watching the game on TV - the speed and quickness was evident. The Slate article was interesting but not convincing by any measure.

First of all, there different kinds of speed - track speed and game speed. And looking strictly at 40 times is misleading (as was done in the Slate article). Game speed, imo, utilizes bursts of speed, quickness, the ability to change direction at top speed, and vision. Game speed is exemplified by Percy Harvin. When he runs it's like hitting the turbo button on a video game. I have no idea what his 40 time is but I haven't seen any college player run faster than him - ever! Florida receivers are always so shifty and can change directions at full speed - e.g., Ike Hilliard, Reidell Anthony, Percy Harvin, Darrell Jackson, Andre Caldwell, Reche Caldwell, Jacquez Green, ... So by measuring HS 40 times in Michigan vs. 40 times in Florida the Slate article was missing the point of game speed. There is really no way to measure game speed.

Second, by Big Ten teams playing prodding styles that rely less on speed than power, I argue that they are not used to the speed at which the southern teams play - e.g., spread offenses, fun 'n gun, etc. Hence, when they play these teams they players aren't ready for the speed of the game - not necessarily the speed of the players.

By the way, here are some articles that discusses speed with respect to last years BCS game -

- Speed of LB Earl Everett - chased down Troy Smith
- reference to "slowish" Buckeyes
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2724984

Urban talks about speed of D-Line
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls06/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=2725468

OSU lineman discuss speed (to be fair, you mentioned the defensive ends, but...to reiterate)
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls06/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=2725028

This was what I found in a 3 min search.

tommy
12-02-2007, 10:16 PM
Also, What is up with LSU going from #7 to #2 in the standings in a week, despite teams above them winning their conference championships? It just shows that ACC gets no respect when it comes to the BCS. VTech was ranked ahead of LSU last week, they won their conference championship yesterday, yet LSU saunters right on by them into the national title game. And yes I know about the head-to-head win early in the season. It obviously didn't factor into polls last week, so why does it all of a sudden come into play now?



There is no rational reason why LSU passed Kansas, Georgia, and, especially,Va Tech after having been ranked behind them last week. LSU's win over Tennessee was not particularly impressive such that it would justify vaulting over three teams that it was adjudged to be worse than as recently as last week. No, the voters simply have an SEC bias, and an LSU bias. No matter what the scoreboards say, they simply believe that LSU is the best team this year because they have the best talent and play in what is often (though not clear at all this year) one of the top conferences if not the top conference. They wanted LSU in the title game if there was any way to get them there. Makes for a sexier matchup than Va Tech or Georgia vs. Ohio State. The voters moved them up because they wanted to see them matchup with Ohio State, not because they really earned it.

phaedrus
12-02-2007, 10:56 PM
There is no rational reason why LSU passed Kansas, Georgia, and, especially,Va Tech after having been ranked behind them last week.

I'm more of a college basketball fan than college football, but in my humble opinion, there isn't much better reason to have one 2-loss team ranked over another than the results of their head-to-head matchup.

Wander
12-02-2007, 11:11 PM
I'm more of a college basketball fan than college football, but in my humble opinion, there isn't much better reason to have one 2-loss team ranked over another than the results of their head-to-head matchup.

That's fine, but then why was Virginia Tech ranked ahead of LSU last week? Virginia Tech's win over BC was more impressive than LSU's over Tennessee.

tommy
12-03-2007, 12:30 AM
That's fine, but then why was Virginia Tech ranked ahead of LSU last week? Virginia Tech's win over BC was more impressive than LSU's over Tennessee.

totally agree. that's where the bias of the voters is made so transparent. if they really thought LSU was a better team or more deserving, they would've voted them ahead of Va Tech last week. i'm not saying that would have been unreasonable, as LSU did trounce Va Tech earlier in the year. but they didn't vote it that way. and there was nothing that occurred this weekend that could reasonably have changed their minds. it's like they said to themselves, "yes, i voted Va Tech ahead of LSU last week when it didn't mean a whole lot but uh-oh, now that vote means something and, hmmm, who do I really want to see play in the title game? i just LIKE that LSU squad more and want to see that matchup more." so bogus.

the whole affair makes me want to watch college FB less, not more. if sports don't have integrity, they're pro wrestling.

Stray Gator
12-03-2007, 02:05 AM
Mizzou definitely got shorted IMO. LSU's win over Tennessee was pretty impressive considering they played without their starting QB, without their star defensive lineman (maybe the best in the country), and with limited services from their best receiver. When LSU was healthy and played Virginia Tech earlier this season, it was no contest. Maybe the voters considered the likelihood that LSU will be healthy again by the first week of January. In any event, the last BCS poll is always a major reassessment, influenced less heavily by recent results than by a team's body of work over the course of the season and anticipated strength when the bowls are to be played.

And to the OSU fans who are still arguing that Ginn's absence changed the outcome of the BCSCG against UF, give it up already. I was at the game, too. Please go back and watch the tape to make an objective determination of whether the problem with OSU's offense had anything to do with lack of talented receivers. Even if Troy Smith had Pro Bowl receivers out there, it wouldn't have mattered because he spent most of the night running for his life to avoid the Gator rush. And for the record, I believe the fastest player on the field that night was Percy Harvin.

ice-9
12-03-2007, 02:58 AM
It's ironic that in college basketball we often tell each other to discount what happens in November. After all, teams are supposed to improve by the end of the season right? Teams like Syracuse (circa Anthony) and Florida last year?

In college football, however, it seems that an early season loss counts as much as an end of season loss. Poor Virginia Tech. They lost badly to LSU, true, but they are a much better team now and avenged their only other loss in reasonably impressive fashion against BC.

Yet another reason why a playoff system is needed. Isn't the point to find the best team at the END of the season, not necessarily over the season?

RelativeWays
12-03-2007, 07:24 AM
What an interesting twist that through all the tumult in the polls this year, we're still going to end up with LSU and OSU playing for the National Championship. Excuse me while I stifle a yawn. It would have been nice to see one of the teams that would normally never get a chance to play for the NC have a shot, it rarely ever happens in college football.

Bluedog
12-03-2007, 08:19 AM
When was the last time six (or more) teams received at least one first place vote in the final regular season AP poll? I'm guessing never, but don't know for sure.

Highlander
12-03-2007, 08:23 AM
What an interesting twist that through all the tumult in the polls this year, we're still going to end up with LSU and OSU playing for the National Championship. Excuse me while I stifle a yawn. It would have been nice to see one of the teams that would normally never get a chance to play for the NC have a shot, it rarely ever happens in college football.


I agree 150%. I'm sick of watching the Pac 10, SEC, Big 12, and/or Big 10 play every year for the National Championship. It seems like the only way the ACC or Big East can make the title game is to go undefeated and hope one of those four drops at least a game. You can of course forget about either one of those conferences getting a second seat at the BCS table - it won't happen anytime soon. But if a big 10 or Pac 10 team plays in the NC game, a second team from one of those conferences is basically guaranteed a trip to the Rose Bowl. How is that fair?

One other thing - every year the Big 10 looks like a genius for not having a conference championship game, as its teams get a de-facto bump while teams that play that extra game. Since the ACC added a championship game, they haven't sniffed the NC.

MulletMan
12-03-2007, 08:40 AM
Stray, your Gators won the title last year, thouroughly destroying tOSU. Congrats. Its over. Let's move on. (By the way... this was supposed to be a joke, but I just re-read it and I figured I needed to point out the sarcasm...)

While UF did have a ton of speed, the biggest problem for the Buckeyes in last year's NC was that they didn't bother to show up. You can't win a game when you don't play every down like its your last when your opponent is as good as UF.

Ginn's absence DID make a difference, because the lack of speed didn't allow the Bucks to stretch the field, thus allowing UF to blitz constantly and thus making Smith run for his life the entire game. This is a bit of a chicken-egg kind of discussion though, because UF would have blitzed a lot anyway. However, one pick up, and a strike to TG probably would have caused Meyer's staff to not send the dogs on nearly every down. No matter... the better team won.

While I am really excited that tOSU is in the NC game, regardless of who wins, it seems like this title will be tainted. I mean, let's say that LSU wins, and USC trounces the Illini in the Rose... who's the better team? Please, someone give me a playoff... somehow... please.

While not having a conference title game worked out for the Big Ten this season, many times it doesn't. Look how many spots LSU moved up by winning the SEC title game. What is LSU had beaten UT by 40, and only one of the top 2 had lost? Do you think OSU would have done themselves any favors by being at home?

The BCS sucks.

Stray Gator
12-03-2007, 08:53 AM
...The BCS sucks.

On that point, and perhaps that point alone, I think there is a broad consensus among college football fans... :D

blazindw
12-03-2007, 09:26 AM
While I am really excited that tOSU is in the NC game, regardless of who wins, it seems like this title will be tainted. I mean, let's say that LSU wins, and USC trounces the Illini in the Rose... who's the better team? Please, someone give me a playoff... somehow... please.

I am not excited that Ohio Snake is in the title game (I'm very biased though...can't you tell ;) ), but if USC trounces the Illini, they would have to leap VT, Oklahoma and UGA in the AP Poll. If they win their bowl games (VT over Kansas, Oklahoma over WVU and UGA over Hawaii), USC jumping all of them when the voters say right now that those other teams are better would be a travesty. If VT completely destroys Kansas and LSU wins a close one over Ohio Snake, do you think that VT would have a chance at the AP championship? I don't, because people will use some logic that will include LSU's earlier trouncing of VT by 41 points and say that VT could not possibly be a national champion.

The system doesn't work. The AP recognized that, that's why they bailed out and just give their own championship. A playoff is absolutely necessary, and those who can't just look at the debate over the teams this year and see that are blind to the facts.

SoCalDukeFan
12-03-2007, 11:14 AM
The BCS sucks.

My significant other is a USC Trojan alum and we have season tickets.

I hope that when this contract ends that the Pac 10 and the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl pull out of the BCS and go back to the traditional Rose Bowl. If the winner is selected National Champ by the writers then we just have split champs.

SoCal

MulletMan
12-03-2007, 11:25 AM
The AP recognized that, that's why they bailed out and just give their own championship.

D-wizzle... you know I love ya, but the AP didn't recognize the inherent flaws in the system and decide to bail out. They didn't want to make thier votes public, so they got booted from the "system". The writers wanted to protect thier own butts in case they voted against what a local fan base might want. Everyone in the whole "system" is out to make $$$ and cover thier own behinds.

blazindw
12-03-2007, 11:30 AM
D-wizzle... you know I love ya, but the AP didn't recognize the inherent flaws in the system and decide to bail out. They didn't want to make thier votes public, so they got booted from the "system". The writers wanted to protect thier own butts in case they voted against what a local fan base might want. Everyone in the whole "system" is out to make $$$ and cover thier own behinds.

You're right, but I think they were handed a sort of ultimatum on the issue of making votes public, and instead of agreeing, they just said peace and moved on. So, I think we're both right in some way on the AP "leaving" the BCS

rthomas
12-03-2007, 12:00 PM
I hope that when this contract ends that the Pac 10 and the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl pull out of the BCS and go back to the traditional Rose Bowl.

Two words: Notre Dame.

SoCalDukeFan
12-03-2007, 12:31 PM
Two words: Notre Dame.

I want the traditional Rose Bowl with the Pac 10 and Big 10 Champs. The BCS can do whatever they want. Not sure what Notre Dame has to do with it.

SoCal

rthomas
12-03-2007, 01:03 PM
I want the traditional Rose Bowl with the Pac 10 and Big 10 Champs. The BCS can do whatever they want. Not sure what Notre Dame has to do with it.

SoCal

That's who you would turn in to.

rockymtn devil
12-03-2007, 01:42 PM
That's who you would turn in to.

Why? The AP, even when it was used to calculate the BCS, was under no obligation to vote the BCS Champion its National Champion. Going back to the traditional Rose Bowl would potentially harm the B10 and P10, but it would be no worse than it was during the Bowl Alliance/Coalition years. Teams like USC, OSU, Michigan, Oregon, etc. would have to rely on the AP to give them a national title.

The Rose Bowl "entered" the BCS back in 1998 with one foot out the door. Even today, it has it's own TV contract wholly seperate from the BCS's agreement with Fox. I don't think it will pull out, but it wouldn't shock me either.

SoCalDukeFan
12-03-2007, 03:54 PM
Under the traditional system, this year the Rose Bowl would have Ohio State playing USC. If Ohio State won then I am sure that the writer's would name them NC and most of the country would agree.

If the Rose Bowl winner every 2,3 or 4 years was declared the NC by the writers, then the whole BCS BS would be even more exposed and they would have to change.

The real issue is probably money. The Pac10 and the Big 10 would lose the chance to have 2 teams get BCS money, a la Illinois and Ohio State this year.

SoCal