PDA

View Full Version : Does the Rose Bowl Committee regret its decision yet?



calltheobvious
01-01-2008, 05:46 PM
It's still early, and things could change, but we're not even halfway through the first quarter and the Fighting Carrolls are pasting the Fighting Zookers.

The Rose Bowl could have selected Georgia to face USC, which would have easily made for the second-highest-rated game of the bowl season. Instead they went with an Illinois team that had one impressive win on its resume. Are the old men in red blazers just so football-unaware that they had no idea this would probably happen, or do they just not care? It's a silly choice I know, because there's probably a lot of both.

What say you, lifelong Big Televen and Pac 10 fans and followers?

YmoBeThere
01-01-2008, 05:56 PM
Way, way, way too early to be thinking that this game ends how it started...

JasonEvans
01-01-2008, 06:29 PM
Now 21 nothing and that is with USC trying their hardest to let Illinois in the game by botching punts and throwing silly receiver falls down interceptions.

--Jason "USC gonna win this one biiig" Evans

mr. synellinden
01-01-2008, 06:59 PM
I wish we could have seen a USC - Georgia Rose Bowl as well.

Actually, I wish USC would have made the BCS championship game. I think they are one of the best two teams in the country. The problem is, I have no idea who the other one is.

rockymtn devil
01-01-2008, 07:50 PM
I still think its the right choice, but I grew up in B10 country where we always watched the Rose Bowl even if Ohio State wasn't playing in it. I guess I'm a sucker for the traditional matchup.

Illinois' defense has actually been decent, although now they're tired. The offense just keeps turning the ball over and putting the defense in bad situations. Just a few minutes ago it 21-10 with Illinois driving before they fumbled it into the endzone. If they score there its 21-17 and a much better game. Now its 35-10. What is it with B10 teams and goaline fumbles today?

I actually think that the BCS is happy with the pick of Illinois. Had it been Georgia against USC you would've had the potential for a split national title if LSU won a close game and either the Dawgs or Trojans were impressive. The powers that be in the BCS want to avoid that.

calltheobvious
01-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Way, way, way too early to be thinking that this game ends how it started...


42-10, 12 minutes left to go.

Now may I think about it?

billybreen
01-01-2008, 08:41 PM
If Georgia stomps HI by 30+, the stupidity of these pairing will be even more evident. College football is too good of a sport to suffer under the arbitrary and unfair bowl system.

YmoBeThere
01-01-2008, 08:53 PM
42-10, 12 minutes left to go.

Now may I think about it?

When USC scored the touchdown after the Illinois turnover at around the 5 yard line(score was 21-10 at the time) then it was over. So much earlier than 12 minutes.

billybreen
01-01-2008, 08:59 PM
When USC scored the touchdown after the Illinois turnover at around the 5 yard line(score was 21-10 at the time) then it was over. So much earlier than 12 minutes.

Illinois kept it closer than I expected, but I don't think the game was ever really in question. Georgia would have been a much better match up.

rockymtn devil
01-01-2008, 09:06 PM
If Georgia stomps HI by 30+, the stupidity of these pairing will be even more evident. College football is too good of a sport to suffer under the arbitrary and unfair bowl system.

I agree, but it's still better than the old system. Under the Bowl Alliance, we would've had the following matchups:

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. USC
Sugar: LSU vs. Virginia Tech
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Georgia (sort of a guess here)
Orange: West Virginia vs. Missouri

I had to guess a little in the Fiesta and Orange Bowls but I think that's a decent stab.

YmoBeThere
01-01-2008, 09:42 PM
Illinois kept it closer than I expected, but I don't think the game was ever really in question. Georgia would have been a much better match up.

Agreed, but to use a basketball example, how many games have you seen where we have gone in to the second half with a large lead(15-18 pts) and the opposition cuts it to a working margin(6-8 pts)with 8 to 9 minutes to go(or earlier)? If we put the lead back up to 15 pts, then the games is over. Otherwise, grab your seat, because it could be a wild ride. Obviously football is not basketball, but if Ill would have scored a TD to bring the margin to 21-17, then it would be a whole new ball game. They fumbled on the 5 yd line, so not an inconceivable thought. That turnover and the next couple of turnovers emotionally defeated Illinois.

billybreen
01-01-2008, 09:45 PM
Agreed, but to use a basketball example, how many games have you seen where we have gone in to the second half with a large lead(15-18 pts) and the opposition cuts it to a working margin(6-8 pts)with 8 to 9 minutes to go(or earlier)? If we put the lead back up to 15 pts, then the games is over. Otherwise, grab your seat, because it could be a wild ride. Obviously football is not basketball, but if Ill would have scored a TD to bring the margin to 21-17, then it would be a whole new ball game. They fumbled on the 5 yd line, so not an inconceivable thought. That turnover and the next couple of turnovers emotionally defeated Illinois.

Bad analogy. If Duke has a 15-18 point lead starting the second half, it's a guaranteed loss. It's actually known as the ThroatyBreen Corollary ;)

Cavlaw
01-01-2008, 09:51 PM
I'm an old Rose Bowl die-hard. It's a Big Ten - Pac 10 game, period. When it is changed under the BCS format, it's a travesty.

(And frankly, I'd like to see the conferences send their champions to play in it, the BCS sucks)

YmoBeThere
01-01-2008, 09:56 PM
Bad analogy. If Duke has a 15-18 point lead starting the second half, it's a guaranteed loss. It's actually known as the ThroatyBreen Corollary ;)

Now that is brilliant!:)

billybreen
01-01-2008, 10:05 PM
24-3 Georgia early in the second quarter. Screw atavistic bowl pairings. Give me competitive games between evenly matched teams.

calltheobvious
01-01-2008, 10:28 PM
I'm an old Rose Bowl die-hard. It's a Big Ten - Pac 10 game, period. When it is changed under the BCS format, it's a travesty.

(And frankly, I'd like to see the conferences send their champions to play in it, the BCS sucks)

I really, really, really hate the Rose Bowl. The old crusties who control that anachronism are cultish and weird (h.t., Throaty), and today they really hurt the two conferences they have fetishized. If USC had been allowed to play Georgia, they would have had a shot at creating some serious discussion for the AP. Further, the better match-up would have saved the Big Televen the embarassment of sending its third best team to be sacrificed on national tv.

Lastly, said crusties do this because they know that addicts like me will continue to watch, no matter how much we moan about process. I hate myself for caring about this stuff.

Good night college football, and good night, Georgia (it's not yet half-time); please be merciful to Hawaii in the second half.

tommy
01-01-2008, 11:42 PM
I agree, but it's still better than the old system. Under the Bowl Alliance, we would've had the following matchups:

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. USC
Sugar: LSU vs. Virginia Tech
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Georgia (sort of a guess here)
Orange: West Virginia vs. Missouri

I had to guess a little in the Fiesta and Orange Bowls but I think that's a decent stab.

Those games look a lot better to me than the ones we actually got. No Hawaii or Illinois, who clearly weren't ready for prime time, and instead we'd have probably the best 8 teams, in 4 really good matchups.

rockymtn devil
01-02-2008, 12:02 AM
Those games look a lot better to me than the ones we actually got. No Hawaii or Illinois, who clearly weren't ready for prime time, and instead we'd have probably the best 8 teams, in 4 really good matchups.

The individual matchups are better, but the system isn't. Under the old system, consider this scenario:

USC beats Ohio State
LSU beats Virginia Tech
Oklahoma beats Georgia
West Virginia beats Missouri

Here you would have 6 two loss teams (and maybe a 7th floating around in Kansas, who actually could be a 1-loss team), four of which won major bowl games against highly touted teams. Who wins the national title? USC, LSU, OU, and WVU (and maybe Kansas if they are 12-1) all have solid claims and tragic flaws.

At least in the current system we get a 1-2 game. It may not be the game you wanted, but it's the game that the voters and computers, taking the entire season into account, gave us. That's better than the cluster the old system would've created.

rockymtn devil
01-02-2008, 12:12 AM
Those games look a lot better to me than the ones we actually got. No Hawaii or Illinois, who clearly weren't ready for prime time, and instead we'd have probably the best 8 teams, in 4 really good matchups.

And, I'll point out that there were plenty of bowl blowouts under the old system where Illinois and Hawaii would not have gotten in. Just a sampling of not close major bowl games in the 15 years or so prior to the BCS.

1984 Rose Bowl: UCLA 45 Illinois 9
1987 Orange Bowl: Oklahoma 42 Arkansas 8
1986 Sugar Bowl: Tennessee 35 Miami 7
1991 Fiesta Bowl: Louisville 34 Alabama 7
1992 Rose Bowl: Washington 34 Michigan 14
1992 Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 42 Tennessee 17
1996 Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska 62 Florida 24 (in a national title game)
1994 Sugar Bowl: Florida 41 West Virginia 7
1997 Sugar Bowl: Florida 52 Florida State 20 (in a national title game)

So, the old system didn't always provide good games (just like the BCS doesn't always give us bad ones) and it wasn't very efficient in choosing a champion.

Lavabe
01-02-2008, 12:13 AM
Good night college football, and good night, Georgia (it's not yet half-time); please be merciful to Hawaii in the second half.

Somewhere, somehow, ugadevil is out there wearing black, woofing it, drinking, dancing to Soulja Boy, praising Mark Richt, and wondering what would have happened if UGA and USC played. Now THAT would have been a game.

After tonight, think Colt Brennan has a future in the NFL?:rolleyes:

Cheers,
Lavabe

A-Tex Devil
01-02-2008, 12:17 AM
The individual matchups are better, but the system isn't. Under the old system, consider this scenario:

USC beats Ohio State
LSU beats Virginia Tech
Oklahoma beats Georgia
West Virginia beats Missouri

Here you would have 6 two loss teams (and maybe a 7th floating around in Kansas, who actually could be a 1-loss team), four of which won major bowl games against highly touted teams. Who wins the national title? USC, LSU, OU, and WVU (and maybe Kansas if they are 12-1) all have solid claims and tragic flaws.

At least in the current system we get a 1-2 game. It may not be the game you wanted, but it's the game that the voters and computers, taking the entire season into account, gave us. That's better than the cluster the old system would've created.

But isn't that the point? The result of this year's BCS solves nothing, but creates at least 2 (maybe 3 in the Orange Bowl) complete mismatches.

I mean, if we are going to arbitrarily pick from a bunch of 2 loss teams, why not make all of the games have some meaning and potential title implications? It's not like we are solving anything if LSU wins next week. They get the crystal football, but UGa, USC, OU and VaTech (if they each win) all could, conceivably, win the AP and we have the same split championship.

If we can't have a playoff, I prefer bowl ties and more big games than the current system.

tommy
01-02-2008, 12:39 AM
The individual matchups are better, but the system isn't. Under the old system, consider this scenario:

USC beats Ohio State
LSU beats Virginia Tech
Oklahoma beats Georgia
West Virginia beats Missouri

Here you would have 6 two loss teams (and maybe a 7th floating around in Kansas, who actually could be a 1-loss team), four of which won major bowl games against highly touted teams. Who wins the national title? USC, LSU, OU, and WVU (and maybe Kansas if they are 12-1) all have solid claims and tragic flaws.

At least in the current system we get a 1-2 game. It may not be the game you wanted, but it's the game that the voters and computers, taking the entire season into account, gave us. That's better than the cluster the old system would've created.

But this system often provides a cluster too -- like this year. Just because the voters, many who are pushing their own agendas, and the computers say these two teams are the best doesn't make it so. They put Nebraska in a few years ago against Miami and they clearly weren't deserving. The computers left the #1 in both polls USC squad out of the title game a few years ago.

Now I don't really mind the cluster -- the arguments are fun. But my point is that under this system or that one, you have to get pretty lucky to get a game in which just about everyone agrees the top two teams are matched, and the winner is a consensus champion. I mean, look at it this year, especially if two-loss LSU beats Ohio St. Can you really say there will be any consensus that they're more deserving than USC or Georgia or even Kansas, Va Tech, or Oklahoma? I don't think so. Just look at all the good arguments that have gone on just on this board in support of all these different teams.

Matter of fact, if most folks were asked who are the two best teams or the two most deserving teams going into the bowls, I venture to guess they would've picked Ohio St. and USC. A good old traditional Rose Bowl would've set that one up.

A-Tex Devil
01-02-2008, 12:51 AM
And, I'll point out that there were plenty of bowl blowouts under the old system where Illinois and Hawaii would not have gotten in. Just a sampling of not close major bowl games in the 15 years or so prior to the BCS.

1984 Rose Bowl: UCLA 45 Illinois 9
1987 Orange Bowl: Oklahoma 42 Arkansas 8
1986 Sugar Bowl: Tennessee 35 Miami 7
1991 Fiesta Bowl: Louisville 34 Alabama 7
1992 Rose Bowl: Washington 34 Michigan 14
1992 Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 42 Tennessee 17
1996 Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska 62 Florida 24 (in a national title game)
1994 Sugar Bowl: Florida 41 West Virginia 7
1997 Sugar Bowl: Florida 52 Florida State 20 (in a national title game)

So, the old system didn't always provide good games (just like the BCS doesn't always give us bad ones) and it wasn't very efficient in choosing a champion.

There will always be mismatches and blowouts. But I would make every effort to watch all 4 games you hypothesized - and I tried to watch all the major bowls back when there was a conference champ in every one. I completely skipped the Rose and Sugar this year and will likely skip the Orange. Now I'm just me, so maybe I'm in the minority and ratings will be great for the Sugar Bowl (for instance), but I doubt it.

rockymtn devil
01-02-2008, 01:51 AM
There will always be mismatches and blowouts. But I would make every effort to watch all 4 games you hypothesized - and I tried to watch all the major bowls back when there was a conference champ in every one. I completely skipped the Rose and Sugar this year and will likely skip the Orange. Now I'm just me, so maybe I'm in the minority and ratings will be great for the Sugar Bowl (for instance), but I doubt it.

Agreed. I posted those old results in response to a post that stated that under the old system we would've been spared Illinois and Hawaii who were, according to that poster, not ready for primetime. My point was exactly what you just said--in any system, teams that will be pitted against ones that are vastly superior, and that aspect of college football has nothing to do with the BCS. The four games I hypothesized about would've been great but there were years under the old system where the matchups were as bad as they are this year. And there have been years where the BCS has given us great slates (2000, 2003, 2005, 2006)

I watched the Rose Bowl through the 3rd quarter and then watched as I cleaned the house. I watched the Sugar for a full three minutes, but that was more because I'd heard enough about "SEC speed" for one day and didn't need any more. I won't go out of my way to watch the Orange Bowl at all, but will make time for the Fiesta and won't miss the BCS Title game (Buckeye fan).

ugadevil
01-02-2008, 03:05 AM
I've returned from my Sugar Bowl game watching party and must say the same thing I said a month ago...UGA is as deserving as any team to play in the national championship game. 31 point victory over the vaunted offense of Hawaii and I think the 31 point margin doesn't actually indicate how lopsided that game was. That game seemed like a video game where Georgia knew everything Hawaii was going to do and just toyed with them. Oh, and Georgia's still undefeated after the opening kickoff! Take that Les Miles and your undefeated in regulation!

If UGA can't get in the national championship game, at least let them go to the Rose Bowl where they can play a team that would be an even match up. Currently, the BCS games have been a complete joke.

Rose Bowl + Tradtion = Stupidity

dukemomLA
01-02-2008, 04:37 AM
Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

devildeac
01-02-2008, 09:15 AM
Bad analogy. If Duke has a 15-18 point lead starting the second half, it's a guaranteed loss. It's actually known as the ThroatyBreen Corollary ;)

I think the lead must be greater than 17 points for a 'guaranteed' W(unless Pete Gaudet is coaching:o ). If it is 17 points or less, there are no guarantees.

hurleyfor3
01-02-2008, 09:29 AM
I think the lead must be greater than 17 points for a 'guaranteed' W(unless Pete Gaudet is coaching:o ). If it is 17 points or less, there are no guarantees.

Seventeen is the Number of Death. We hashed this out on the old boards a couple years back. We have blown numerous 17-point leads in the K era (especially the post-back-surgery K era), but never a lead more than 17, and strangely, very few I can recall in the 14-15-16 range.

Channing
01-02-2008, 10:56 AM
Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

Thats a pretty bold assertion. USC may have won, but it is unlikely they would have mopped the floor with UGA.

Hawaii wasn't tested by a top tier team all season, and when they met one they put on their best deer in the headlights face. That game was fun to watch for the first half (and the only reason it was fun that long is because I am a die hard UGA fan). Oh well, at least we won and dont have to go through the embarassment OU went through last year.

calltheobvious
01-02-2008, 10:57 AM
Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

Have you seen Georgia play at all this season?

Channing
01-02-2008, 10:58 AM
Have you seen Georgia play at all this season?

If I may amend that assertion . . . have you seen Ga play at all over the last 6 games. They were nothing special for the first part of the season.

billybreen
01-02-2008, 11:01 AM
If I may amend that assertion . . . have you seen Ga play at all over the last 6 games. They were nothing special for the first part of the season.

Yes, UGA over the last 7 games of the season was a different team. USC's O-line has been pretty beat up this year, and I don't think they could have kept the heat off of Booty. Would have been a good game.

Cavlaw
01-02-2008, 11:10 AM
Given how well (surprisingly) Michigan played against Florida, I wonder if they would have been a better Rose Bowl contender than Illinois. Michigan beat Illinois head-to-head this year, but Illinois won the tie-breaker in the Big Ten standings due to their win over Ohio State.

Illinois did not look like the team that beat OSU yesterday, but neither did Michigan look like the team that lost to OSU.

rockymtn devil
01-02-2008, 12:03 PM
Given how well (surprisingly) Michigan played against Florida, I wonder if they would have been a better Rose Bowl contender than Illinois. Michigan beat Illinois head-to-head this year, but Illinois won the tie-breaker in the Big Ten standings due to their win over Ohio State.

Illinois did not look like the team that beat OSU yesterday, but neither did Michigan look like the team that lost to OSU.

You could be right about the tie-breaker between Michigan and Illinois, but that isn't why the Illini went to Pasadena over the Wolverines. Illinois was the only other Big 10 team (outside of Ohio State) that was eligible for a BCS game. Michigan could not have been the choice. Had Illinois not got the bid, Georgia wouldn't gone to the Rose Bowl and Arizona State would've been in the BCS.

As for the notion that Georgia or USC should be in the BCS title game, for those of you who think that, are the games in September and October mere exhibitions? The system already treats them as quasi-exhibitions because human voters reward early losses over late ones, and I think that's enough. Yes, Georgia and USC played better than anyone in the country down the stretch, but the football season doesn't start in November.

And yes, I know USC was injured when they lost to Stanford (as if that's an excuse to lose at home to the worst team in your conference). But wasn't the Cardinal playing its backup quarterback too?

Chicago 1995
01-02-2008, 12:15 PM
The Rose Bowl simply couldn't have chosen Georgia.

They would have had to have The Sugar Bowl's permission to take UGA, and there's no chance that the Sugar Bowl wouldn't have given it. Hence, the Rose Bowl's choice of Illinois wasn't over UGA, but instead over someone like Az State, KU or Mizzou. In that light, I think Illinois makes better sense, but I'm a traditionalist Big Ten guy, at some level.

Illinois moved the ball well against SC. Just too many silly turnovers and too much bad red zone execution. 455 yards of offense was enough to be competative. 4TOs wasn't.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, but had Willis not fumbled inside the SC 10 at 21-10, I wonder if we wouldn't have had something fun to watch in the second half yesterday.

Channing
01-02-2008, 12:18 PM
The Rose Bowl simply couldn't have chosen Georgia.

They would have had to have The Sugar Bowl's permission to take UGA, and there's no chance that the Sugar Bowl wouldn't have given it. Hence, the Rose Bowl's choice of Illinois wasn't over UGA, but instead over someone like Az State, KU or Mizzou. In that light, I think Illinois makes better sense, but I'm a traditionalist Big Ten guy, at some level.

Illinois moved the ball well against SC. Just too many silly turnovers and too much bad red zone execution. 455 yards of offense was enough to be competative. 4TOs wasn't.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, but had Willis not fumbled inside the SC 10 at 21-10, I wonder if we wouldn't have had something fun to watch in the second half yesterday.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is a misstatement. The Sugar Bowl is guaranteed the winner of the SEC title game, as long as that team does not go to the national championship game. LSU is going to the national championship game. UGA was selected as an at large team, and the Rose Bowl had the first choice of at large teams. Had they wanted, they could have taken UGA without a problem (just as they had the chance to choose LSU last year - when LSU fans went out and bought up all their Rose Bowl Tickets only to not be selected for the game.)

Cavlaw
01-02-2008, 12:25 PM
I had forgotten the BCS-eligibility issue w/r/t Michigan.

re Georgia, the Rose could have taken them per Steven's comments. Every year the priority for who gets the first at-large pick rotates, and this was the Rose's year to pick first.

Chicago 1995
01-02-2008, 12:33 PM
I could be wrong, but I believe that is a misstatement. The Sugar Bowl is guaranteed the winner of the SEC title game, as long as that team does not go to the national championship game. LSU is going to the national championship game. UGA was selected as an at large team, and the Rose Bowl had the first choice of at large teams. Had they wanted, they could have taken UGA without a problem (just as they had the chance to choose LSU last year - when LSU fans went out and bought up all their Rose Bowl Tickets only to not be selected for the game.)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080101rosebowlteddygreenstein,1,5980348.column?pag e=2

In the link above, Teddy Greenstein quotes Rose Bowl CEO Mitch Dorger as saying he'd have needed to ask for Sugar Bowl permission to take UGA.

Channing
01-02-2008, 12:41 PM
I have never heard of this rule, never heard it brought up, and didnt heare it mentioned during the BCS selection show. I am not saying it is incorrect, but I wonder if asking permission would have been more of a courteous thing to do than a mandatory thing.

Clipsfan
01-02-2008, 01:21 PM
Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

I mean seriously, who does UGA think it is? Stanford?

Highlander
01-02-2008, 02:10 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080101rosebowlteddygreenstein,1,5980348.column?pag e=2

In the link above, Teddy Greenstein quotes Rose Bowl CEO Mitch Dorger as saying he'd have needed to ask for Sugar Bowl permission to take UGA.

Thanks for the link. It does make sense that the Rose Bowl would try to ensure the Sugar Bowl game had a strong traveling team that would sell tickets. Hawaii vs. a non-SEC school in a traditional SEC bowl would not be a strong draw.

Unfortunately, this shows yet again that the primary factor in deciding who plays in which bowl is how many tickets the teams can sell, not what would be the best matchup on the field. At its core, the BCS just isn't a merit based system, no matter how many acronyms or computer polls you put into it.

To be fair, I'm not saying it isn't the same to some extents in other sports. The NCAA tournament certainly tries to set up compelling matchups in the early rounds and keep power teams local to sell tickets. However, at least the NCAA tournament field is big enough to allow smaller market teams a shot, and it pays each school euqally based on how far they go, not by how many tickets they sell.

rockymtn devil
01-02-2008, 02:27 PM
Unfortunately, this shows yet again that the primary factor in deciding who plays in which bowl is how many tickets the teams can sell, not what would be the best matchup on the field. At its core, the BCS just isn't a merit based system, no matter how many acronyms or computer polls you put into it.

To be fair, though, the BCS doesn't claim to be about "merit" outside of the title game. The non-national championship games have absolutely no obligation to choose the "best" teams and they don't hide behind that.

And I do think that the BCS title game is a merit based system. Even if it splits hairs about quality of wins (Auburn's decision to replace Bowling Green with The Citadel in 2004 hurt them, especially since the Falcons dumped Auburn to play Oklahoma) it still looks to what happened on the field to determine who plays. Would a playoff be better? Absolutely. But this isn't a zero-sum situation where it's either a playoff or a non-merit based system. Both Ohio State and LSU merit a spot in the title game. As it went this season, so did Georgia and Oklahoma (not SC; you can't lose at home to Stanford and still be considered for the title).

chattpanther
01-02-2008, 09:19 PM
As for the notion that Georgia or USC should be in the BCS title game, for those of you who think that, are the games in September and October mere exhibitions? The system already treats them as quasi-exhibitions because human voters reward early losses over late ones, and I think that's enough. Yes, Georgia and USC played better than anyone in the country down the stretch, but the football season doesn't start in November.

I agree that the season does not start in November, which is why LSU should not be given consideration any more or any less than UGA or USC. LSU lost both its games in October and November to mid tier SEC teams. It seems that it would be more important to look at how you end a season rather than how you start it.

Also, no one has mentioned the fact that FOX sucks at broadcasting these BCS games. They have never broadcast a college football game and appear to have broadcasters that they threw together at the last minute to do these games. I will never know how they were able to get this BCS deal to do these games when they are the only ones who do not touch college football the whole season. I am definitely taking some consolation that they are getting such horrible and boring games to broadcast.

rockymtn devil
01-02-2008, 09:53 PM
I agree that the season does not start in November, which is why LSU should not be given consideration any more or any less than UGA or USC. LSU lost both its games in October and November to mid tier SEC teams. It seems that it would be more important to look at how you end a season rather than how you start it.

Also, no one has mentioned the fact that FOX sucks at broadcasting these BCS games. They have never broadcast a college football game and appear to have broadcasters that they threw together at the last minute to do these games. I will never know how they were able to get this BCS deal to do these games when they are the only ones who do not touch college football the whole season. I am definitely taking some consolation that they are getting such horrible and boring games to broadcast.

Fox is pretty bad, but it has broadcast college football in the past. They started doing the Cotton Bowl in 1999, and Fox Sports Net does plenty of college football throughout the season--nationally Big 12 and Pac 10 games, as well as regional coverage of mid-major conferences.

calltheobvious
01-03-2008, 12:46 AM
To be fair, though, the BCS doesn't claim to be about "merit" outside of the title game. The non-national championship games have absolutely no obligation to choose the "best" teams and they don't hide behind that.

And I do think that the BCS title game is a merit based system. Even if it splits hairs about quality of wins (Auburn's decision to replace Bowling Green with The Citadel in 2004 hurt them, especially since the Falcons dumped Auburn to play Oklahoma) it still looks to what happened on the field to determine who plays. Would a playoff be better? Absolutely. But this isn't a zero-sum situation where it's either a playoff or a non-merit based system. Both Ohio State and LSU merit a spot in the title game. As it went this season, so did Georgia and Oklahoma (not SC; you can't lose at home to Stanford and still be considered for the title).

Rocky, I don't mean to detract from your main point (which I agree with), but I do want to interject one thing: Auburn was not going to get into the top 2 in 2004 no matter who they had scheduled. Pundits and voters were looking for anything they could find to justify leaving USC and OU in the top 2. Auburn had a far, far stronger schedule than either team, and disposed of superior competition with much greater ease overall. Would you like to know how many teams have ever beaten 5 top-10 teams in a season? 2004 Auburn. That's the list. And neither OU nor USC had more than two such teams on its schedule that year.

Sorry for the rant. Can you tell I'm still bitter?

P.S. Thanks for including that it was Bowling Green that opted out of the contract, leaving Auburn scrambling to find anyone they could schedule. The conventional wisdom is that Auburn bought out BGSU.

rockymtn devil
01-03-2008, 11:01 AM
Rocky, I don't mean to detract from your main point (which I agree with), but I do want to interject one thing: Auburn was not going to get into the top 2 in 2004 no matter who they had scheduled. Pundits and voters were looking for anything they could find to justify leaving USC and OU in the top 2. Auburn had a far, far stronger schedule than either team, and disposed of superior competition with much greater ease overall. Would you like to know how many teams have ever beaten 5 top-10 teams in a season? 2004 Auburn. That's the list. And neither OU nor USC had more than two such teams on its schedule that year.

Sorry for the rant. Can you tell I'm still bitter?

P.S. Thanks for including that it was Bowling Green that opted out of the contract, leaving Auburn scrambling to find anyone they could schedule. The conventional wisdom is that Auburn bought out BGSU.

In understand your bitterness. Part of my family are Auburn fans (and part went to BG!) so I've heard about this for years. Looking at their schedule, though, it isn't as difficult as you'd think. There's a difference between beating a team that's ranked in the top 10 and beating a team that's a top 10 team. Auburn did a lot of the former, but the teams ended up not really being top-10 quality. Starting with VT, that game was after Auburn got shut out of the title game so it obviously didn't get counted towards their BCS ranking. Tennessee and LSU were both good, but both lost 3 games (The Vols even lost to Ty's last Notre Dame team) and both got beat in their bowl games (LSU to Iowa and Tennessee to Texas A&M). Georgia was a quality win.

Also, in terms of strength of schedule, I'm not sure your characterization of Auburn's schedule is on point. I can remember their being talk of the SEC being down that season, and after a quick google search, I found the last Sagarin rankings from that year (I realize this is only one of the BCS computers, but it's a good indicator).

According to Jeff Sagarin, Oklahoma played the 13th toughest schedule in America that season; USC played the 7th toughest; Auburn played the 60th toughest. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm)

Now, this is from after the bowl games, and it does take the fact the SC and Oklahoma played each other into account. But, given that Auburn played the team that finished the season ranked #7 in this poll, this couldn't make that big of an impact, at least not big enough to have a difference of 7 and 13 and 60. Auburn's schedule wasn't tougher than OU or USC. It was actually quite weaker.