-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter ScriptOhio
- Start date
xcrunner
Hall of Fame
The 'true champion' is the one who wins the championship the way the championship was supposed to be won. In the NFL, that means making it to the playoffs and then going undefeated. In CFB, it means going undefeated. If your schedule is weak, it means going undefeated and being impressive in those wins. (Utah doesn't have room to complain, because they had an opportunity to make a statement against TSUN- who was theoretically decent at the time- and they utterly failed to do so). Who has room to complain? Texas? They faced a hard schedule, but unfortunately, life is tough, and they shouldn't have lost to tech. USC? If their D is better than the NFL all-star defense, they shouldn't have lost to oOSU... end of story..OH10;1342413; said:
Upvote
0
xcrunner
Hall of Fame
At the same time, I would guess that the ratings are not as good. Also, the BCS is largely responsible for some of the insane fanaticism inherent in CFB. I.e. with a playoff system, say good-bye to The Rivalry as we know it, and say hello to putting in the 2nd stringers because we're guaranteed a playoff birth and a good seed.OH10;1342425; said:
This isn't the thread for that debate though, sorry.
Upvote
0
a plus one would not remove the excitement. An 8 team playoff would still maintain the non-bcs bowl system, the general schedule and danger of losing everything in any game would still remain.
Anything more would drastically change the implications.
Anything more would drastically change the implications.
Upvote
0
OH10
*
xcrunner;1342431; said:
Correct. It seems inevitable that the same old tired BCS-Playoff pissing matches will start when the BCS ratings come out.
And why is that? Because the BCS ratings screwed the pooch again. I feel sorry for Texas, who had to go through a murder's row of opponents over a four-week stretch (Oklahoma, Okie State, Missouri and Texas Tech), only to lose the last game of that stretch (1) on the road in a hostile environment; and (2) on a heartbreaking play completed by the best player in colege football (Crabtree). Then, they are likely to lose a spot in the title game to:
1. A team that lost at home to a mediocre Ole Miss team because it couldn't convert a simple 4th and 1 with superman at quarterback.
2. A team it beat on a neutral field 45-35.
As I said before... if that's the system working, then I am seriously going to have to lower my standards for all other systems.
Upvote
0
Another thing worth noting... the regular season is suspenseful, but we can surely do better than:
Georgia-Hawaii, LSU-ND, Louisville-Wake Forest, PSU, FSU, Utah-Pitt, OSU-KSU, etc.
Georgia-Hawaii, LSU-ND, Louisville-Wake Forest, PSU, FSU, Utah-Pitt, OSU-KSU, etc.
Upvote
0
LitlBuck
Kevin Warren is an ass
That team that Florida lost to is not a very bad team. Some teams get better as the season progresses and some teams get worse. That's why when I do my poll I do not look at wins and losses but I give them the old "eye" test with regards to how they are playing now.OH10;1342445; said:
OK, Texas beat Oklahoma but Oklahoma beat Texas Tech. Then not only beat them. They humiliated them.
As it has been mentioned many times before, any time the human element is involved in any poll it is not a good poll. The only solution is going to be some type of playoff system for everyone to be satisfied and even then probably everyone will not be satisfied.
Upvote
0
morbitzerker
Putting in PDX
OH10;1342413; said:
Funny you mention this situation because the last game of the season the Patriots beat the Giants, only to have them come back to beat them in the Superbowl. This could be the same situation if there were play-offs in CFB, such as UTex beating OU in the regular season and then having them come back and beat them in some round of the play-offs. Then you would say that OK was the better team, but isn't that essentially the same thing with the BCS having OU jump Texas, without play-offs?
And this isn't an argument against play-offs, or the Giants, just posing a question. If I'm reading your response right, it seems that you feel the Giants were the true champions, even though they got beat by the team they beat when it mattered more. This just seems like a comparable situation to what's going on with UTex and OU and a regular season loss, and a hypothetical play-off loss, and the BCS situation.
Upvote
0
OH10
*
LitlBuck;1342456; said:
Well, I didn't call Ole Miss a bad team. I called them mediocre. Either way, absent adjectives, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Florida's loss to Ole Miss at home is a better loss than Texas' in Lubbock.
The old "eye" test sort of gets thrown out of the window when two teams have actually met on the field.
Hell, Mike Bianchi still thinks Miami is better than Ohio State based on the "eye test." Too bad they played it on the field.
And if we were comparing the teams based on how they did against Texas Tech, I agree that comparison would weigh heavily in favor of Oklahoma. Unfortunately, the old head-to-head on a neutral field element weighs heavily the other way.
If I didn't have the head-to-head 45-35 result, I suppose the Texas Tech result would be the end of the discussion. But, you do have the head-to-head result.
If Texas had lost to Texas Tech at home, I suppose that argument might carry even more weight. Had Texas beat Oklahoma in Austin, it might carry even more weight.
But neutral field? 45-35? Tough sell.
But would anyone here in Columbus be complaining if Ohio State weren't involved in an 8-team playoff this year? Or even close to the same level of gripe Texas legitimately has right now under the current system?
Upvote
0
Another way of looking at this is that the BCS system has rewarded Oklahoma for playing TCU and Cincinnati, a pair of top-15 teams, in their non-conference schedule.
If the BCS would have results like that more often, encouraging teams to schedule better non-conference opponents, it would have something tangible going for it.
Jwins, I think the comment on the previous page may have referred to the old Big Ten rule that had conference ties decided by a vote of the Athletic Directors (as in 1973).
I have no problem with the BCS being used when there's a 3-way tie with no head-to-head winner.
Oklahoma is fortunate that Texas Tech was able to complete their comeback against Baylor, or the 2-way tie would have sent Texas.
If the BCS would have results like that more often, encouraging teams to schedule better non-conference opponents, it would have something tangible going for it.
Jwins, I think the comment on the previous page may have referred to the old Big Ten rule that had conference ties decided by a vote of the Athletic Directors (as in 1973).
I have no problem with the BCS being used when there's a 3-way tie with no head-to-head winner.
Oklahoma is fortunate that Texas Tech was able to complete their comeback against Baylor, or the 2-way tie would have sent Texas.
Upvote
0
OH10
*
jmorbitz;1342460; said:
I still didn't hear anybody from New England complaining when the Giants avenged that loss in the Super Bowl. Not one person. Just as I doubt you'd hear anyone from Austin complain were the same thing to happen to the Longhorns in a playoff system.
Problem is that the voters have already avenged the Oklahoma loss for them in this current system.
Upvote
0
morbitzerker
Putting in PDX
OH10;1342476; said:
I follow you, meaning that the fanbases or players wouldn't feel as jaded because they had been beat on the field when it mattered more, instead of people just saying putting Oklahoma ahead of Texas even though on field performances say otherwise.
Upvote
0