A Split National Championship in 2008?

[redbenn]

Wanna take this outside? :tic:

But then... tragedy strikes...

WAIT!!!! The BCS spit out two teams which don't include #1 in the People polls, USC (2003) WHAT THE [censored]!!!! How can this be? It's not "right" that the BCS doesn't match what the people think! Dammit! Ditch the system!!!

Bull [censored]ing [censored]... you asked for it... you got it... and then.. when it gave you an answer different than the "media bias" poll... you all said "Well, [censored] a lot of that! This system must be broken!" (Not you specifically, BL... just using the royal "you")

Point is - the BCS does EXACTLY what it's designed to do. While they've tweaked away a lot of the benefits (owing to public pressure), at its best, the BCS system removed - or at least put a check on - media bias... USC 2003... Were they deserving? I don't know.. maybe... But.. I'll tell you why they were NOT deserving... because the media .. or the public "thought" so... if they were deserving its because of what they did on the filed... and as against who.... The BCS determined it was not "good enough" when compared to LSU and Oklahoma. So be it.

i've been saying that for years... the only time that people say the bcs works is when it doesn't have to (i.e. osu vs miami '02), and when it does its job to remove the human bias... "it's broken" so they tweak it to get what the humans want.

i am not a playoff pundit, because i still don't think playoffs garuntee the best team is crowned champion anyway (i just spent an hour at work arguing with some guy about that)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

meant to quote you in my previous post. the seeding is done largely based on record. the Giants were a wild card team last year, which means that they weren't even the best team in their own division.

i honestly can see BKB's side in all this, but there's one sticking point, which is that those who share his view always say things like "well, they should have played in a better conference" when referring to teams like Utah. only they disregard important details like the fact that the Mountain West was the 4th or 3rd best conference this year... what those old-school hard-liners should really be saying is "they should have played in a conference that was good 80 years ago, because unless you've been good in the past, you can't possibly be good now," which is a load of horseshit.

LV- I must confess that the MWC, this year at least, proved to be more worthy... or at least as worthy as other "power" conferences. Year after year, that's likely not the case, but for 2008 I would have to admit it was. That said, I'm not convinced that the MWC being as good as or better than the Pac 10, or Big Ten, even, means that it's on par with the SEC (for the sake of the example and in terms of the BCS Champion)

If you took the top teams from the WAC and the MWC (I'm thinking about your Boise States, TCUs, BYUs and Utahs, more or less) and made another "power conference" out of it, I would not have a problem with Utah, or TCU or Boise etc. getting a shot. It's a larger discussion, and one I'm not prepared for right now, but.. ultimatley it would have to come down to some sort of analysis of what makes a power conference a power conference. I think we can agree each power conference has a "great" team (Individual years aside... (ie the ACC had no "geat" team this past year, nor did the Big East)), a couple of reallly really good teams.. some middling teams which can bite you, and your doormats...

To illustrate using the Big Ten (and speaking generally, not specific to 2008):

Great team: Ohio State
Really good teams: Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn State
Team which can bite you: Michigan State, Illinois, Iowa, Purdue
Also rans/doormats: Minnesota (maybe merits "bite you" status), Indiana, Northwestern.

Now, of course teams will move up and down from their "class" in any given year, and the "great team" one year might be Penn State while Ohio State is just Really good.... and again, this isn't supposed to reflect 2008 (Michigan as "really good" would crush my argument before it even started, lol)

But, if you were to assemble a conference out of the mid majors which was comparable, I wouldn't be so steadfast against that conference. I'm not asking that the Utah's and BYUs play in a conference filled with "mid major powers" but, when the bottom 4 teams in your conference are scheduled as "assured wins" by the "big schools" (and without regard for "home and home" usually) you have to do something to get me to notice.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

i am not a playoff pundit, because i still don't think playoffs garuntee the best team is crowned champion anyway (i just spent an hour at work arguing with some guy about that)

There is no way to guarantee that the "best" team is crowned champion. Calling a team the "best" is subjective. What we are debating on is who gets the trophy at the end and who the NCAA recognizes as the "national champ".

 

[Bucklion]

I believe I answered that quite fully. We removed the media bias with the advent of the BCS... and over time, we tweaked it right on out of the system such that it is, indeed, media driven today. USC 2003 being the prime example (cause).


I find it hard to take your mostly silent argument seriously. You assume the legitimacy of TCU,. Boise State and BYU's rating (which, of course, they suffer the same problem your precious Utah faces, if not more so)...

You choose a handful of games, ignoring the rest of a 12 game schedule. Florida beat .. no blasted... unranked LSU. BYU had to tough it out with unranked New Mexico (W: 13 - 10)

I can't help but notice you've yet to give me (or maybe I've just missed it) your prediction of how Utah would have fared against Florida's schedule. Or, Florida against Utahs...

No sense in humoring me at this point...

UNLV beat Arizona State...what does that say about USC? (my guess nothing)

I don't know, I think some will proclaim Utah got the hose job of the century, and some will remain steadfast that they don't belong in the top 10, despite their obvious quality. I fall somewhere in the middle. They just beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, and they were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the mighty SSEEEECCCCC, so I think Utah proved they could beat anyone on Florida's schedule. Now, could they have done so, week after week? We will never know, of course. I imagine they would have dropped a game...but so did Florida, then again. Florida, of course, probably would have rolled over Utah's schedule and been undefeated...just like Utah was. Really no answer, though I think Utah deserves credit as a legit team this year, because they did prove it on the field.

 

[CookyPuss]

I hope they "split" the thing this year just to give people more to piss and moan about.

My reasoning for desiring to see a playoff is to produce some of the best match-ups each and every year. I want to see as many compelling games as possible. Utah vs an unmotivated Alabama squad... yawn. VTech vs UC... double yawn (and I live in Cincy). Until last night, UF had never played OU. What a shame. When will tOSU play Texas again? When will tOSU get another crack at the Gators? Who knows?

A playoff would bring more excitement to a VTech-UC matchup as it would be putting something other than pride on the line. A playoff would give more opportunities for tOSU to play Texas or USC or OU or UF, etc...

I also think it would bring about more interesting out of conference games. If teams don't have to schedule with the concern that more than 1 loss is a death sentence, they might be more apt to schedule a powerhouse rather than the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The "national champion" is always going to be produced by some subjective system and will not always be the "best" team. Those are givens. So, for my own selfish reasons, I want a playoff because I believe it produces the best the opportunity to see more of the best matchups of the best teams.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

My reasoning for desiring to see a playoff is to produce some of the best match-ups each and every year. I want to see as many compelling games as possible. Utah vs an unmotivated Alabama squad... yawn. VTech vs UC... double yawn (and I live in Cincy). Until last night, UF had never played OU. What a shame. When will tOSU play Texas again? When will tOSU get another crack at the Gators? Who knows?

A playoff would bring more excitement to a VTech-UC matchup as it would be putting something other than pride on the line. A playoff would give more opportunities for tOSU to play Texas or USC or OU or UF, etc...

Good points.

 

[redbenn]

some guy who supports utah as the champs, and doesn't think florida deserves to be champs at work had this counter to my argument about utah not playing a schedule week in week out like florida's...

what if utah played teams ranked #1-#11 all year and went 6-5, and florida didnt and lost to ole miss... wouldn't utah be champs because they played a harder schedule... i had to end the argument right there, because i guess his thinking goes way beyond mine :)... he had a lot of great hypothetical situations, which are great to use in arguments...

 

[redbenn]

The "national champion" is always going to be produced by some subjective system and will not always be the "best" team. Those are givens. So, for my own selfish reasons, I want a playoff because I believe it produces the best the opportunity to see more of the best matchups of the best teams.

its always about you. eh?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

some guy who supports utah as the champs, and doesn't think florida deserves to be champs at work had this counter to my argument about utah not playing a schedule week in week out like florida's...

what if utah played teams ranked #1-#11 all year and went 6-5, and florida didnt and lost to ole miss... wouldn't utah be champs because they played a harder schedule... i had to end the argument right there, because i guess his thinking goes way beyond mine :)... he had a lot of great hypothetical situations, which are great to use in arguments...

If SOS was the only factor, then sure... your buddy makes a lot of sense. I don't see anyone arguing wins and losses don't matter... What's the difference between 1 loss and no losses? How about 1 loss and 4 losses? SOS is a consideration, not the determination.

BL - I absolutely concur that Utah is legit this year. Not enough to be champion, far as I'm concerned... but I have no issue with them being #2... If they had done the same with a harder schedule, maybe they would have been in the BCS Championship game... If they do so in the future, more power to them. Until then.... eh... I'm unmoved. Life aint fair... tough shit, Utah.

 

[CookyPuss]

its always about you. eh?

You're goddamned right. I prefer to admit my own selfish desires rather than couching my arguments in terms of what is "right", "fair", "best", or "rational." BKB can't argue with your points if you take logic off the table.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You're goddamned right. I prefer to admit my own selfish desires rather than couching my arguments in terms of what is "right", "fair", "best", or "rational." BKB can't argue with your points if you take logic off the table.

You underestimate me. :p FWIW - your "I want to see great match-ups" argument is, in my mind, thus far the most compelling.

 

[CookyPuss]

You underestimate me. :p FWIW - your "I want to see great match-ups" argument is, in my mind, thus far the most compelling.

When I first started posting on the site, O8ch ran me through the ringer on all of my logical arguments for a playoff. I learned. And no, I never underestimate you. :tongue2:

Actually, that, and when tOSU kept winning Big 10 Championships and not going to the Rose Bowl, the whole bowl thing lost most of its luster for me.

 

[lvbuckeye]

As it is, we had to find a way to differentiate between otherwise like teams (1 loss Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Alabama and zero loss Utah). The BCS does exactly that.

i don't think it does. i think it maybe used to, but people weren't happy with the results.
did you read this? i mean, i always knew it, but it never really sank in until now:

"The people who run the computer rankings...have never been given any clear objective criteria to design their programs, and
they are not allowed to use the score or site of a game in their calculations."

how can you POSSIBLY state that BCS accurately determines who is deserving, when score and venue are taken out of the equation? what could the criteria possibly be? please answer the question.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

i don't think it does. i think it maybe used to, but people weren't happy with the results.
did you read this? i mean, i always knew it, but it never really sank in until now:

"The people who run the computer rankings...have never been given any clear objective criteria to design their programs, and
they are not allowed to use the score or site of a game in their calculations."

how can you POSSIBLY state that BCS accurately determines who is deserving, when score and venue are taken out of the equation? what could the criteria possibly be? please answer the question.

Well, I'm not a computer programmer and have no affiliation with the ones who put together rankings... But, I can tell you the following:

I thought it was a mistake to take MOV and later SOS out of the equation in the first place. Both of these factors are important considerations, and MOV is important especially, so a team that beats the crap out of a bad team doesn't just take an SOS hit. Not that this addresses your question, I just think - as you note in your first sentence - "maybe it [the BCS] used to"

As for what could the criteria be... Again, I can't say for certain, but earlier in the bowl season... or actually.. towards the end of the regular season, I guess... I embarked on creating a ranking system which used many variables. Of all the ones I considered, score and venue were not part of them (except for the portion of a won loss record which might be a function of those factors (and total points too, I guess)).

Here is the post, in case you missed it Link

Now, I don't pretend that what I came up with is the end all be all of college football ratings. It does, however, purport to rank teams without consideration of score and venue. While there are certainly "problem" rankings in that list (For example, I think Pitt at 13 is unusual) the list doesn't seem outlandish...

 

[lvbuckeye]

If SOS was the only factor, then sure... your buddy makes a lot of sense. I don't see anyone arguing wins and losses don't matter... What's the difference between 1 loss and no losses? How about 1 loss and 4 losses? SOS is a consideration, not the determination.

BL - I absolutely concur that Utah is legit this year. Not enough to be champion, far as I'm concerned... but I have no issue with them being #2... If they had done the same with a harder schedule, maybe they would have been in the BCS Championship game... If they do so in the future, more power to them. Until then.... eh... I'm unmoved. Life aint fair... tough shit, Utah.

their schedule was harder than Alabama's. would you have a problem with Bama being the champ? no? why? because they're in the SEC?