A Split National Championship in 2008?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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?

Sagarin had Bama at 55, Utah at 70(note edit below), so I can't answer your question as it is not based on an accurate premise (for purposes of my rankings, anyway).

Do I think 55 is "legit" enough? Frankly, and in a vacuum, no.

And, for what it's worth I had Utah 1 spot ahead of Alabama in my ratings:

Rk....Team.................W....L...SOS...Final Score
1.....Oklahoma.............12...1....8....188.2207
2.....Florida..............12...1...18....177.1832
3.....Texas................11...1...12....164.6770
4.....Texas Tech...........11...1...27....137.5600
5.....Southern California..11...1...40....136.7757
6.....Utah.................12...0...71....128.3398
7.....Alabama..............12...1...56....121.2592

Edit: For what it's worth, I just noticed an error on my original spread sheet.. sagarin's ratings should be Utah 70 and Alabama 55 as I originally posted here before a prior edit... upon a review of the orginal SS, it would seem I have no team rated 6th in terms of SOS. Regardless, the error should effect both teams, Bama and Utah, equally.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Also - in terms of teams "knowing what they have to do" every year.... This is also untrue in another respect, in terms of advocating a playoff.

The example is Bubble Teams... Going in to 2008-09, the Ohio State Basketball team knows what, exactly, about what they need to do to make the Tourney? Sure... win their conference.. that'll work... but.. wait.. it's bigger than that... what if Ohio State loses 5 games? How about 10? 7? What is the "max" number of games they can drop and still get it? Hell, they could lose 20, but win the B10 tourney and still get in....

We have no idea what it'll take...

In football, we have an idea... the number of games you can drop is zero. If you drop one, well.... you're no longer in the driver's seat... Too bad, so sad. Football aint for pussies.

and yet three times in the past 5 years, a team DID drop zero, and they still were given no chance... your explanation is lacking.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

and yet three times in the past 5 years, a team DID drop zero, and they still were given no chance... your explanation is lacking.

Which teams are we talking about?

Auburn 2004? As I have addressed already - don't schedule the Citadel then. For the record, to the extent that my memory serves, Auburn played a schedule rated 66th in 2004. OU and USC were far and away more impressive in terms of SOS that year - I think, again, going by memory, USC was the lower of the two at something like 25th.

Which others? Teams playing in shit conferences? I've explained them time and time again, and several times on this thread. I'm not inclined to do that again.

Maybe you don't read what's inside parenthesis? Cause I went back and think I made my discussion of "knowing what to do" pretty clear....

 

[lvbuckeye]

Sagarin had Bama at 56, Utah at 71, so I can't answer your question as it is not based on an accurate premise (for purposes of my rankings, anyway).

Do I think 55 is "legit" enough? Frankly, and in a vacuum, no.

And, for what it's worth I had Utah 1 spot ahead of Alabama in my ratings:

the NCAA doesn't use the Sagarin ratings to determine the toughest schedule. they use the results on the field to determine who had the hardest schedule: the opposition's cumulative record. Utah had a harder schedule than Alabama and USC according to that metric. of course, i'm well aware that Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida all had tougher schedules than the Utes, but then again, they also had those nagging little things called losses. having a tough schedule shouldn't mean as much when you don't win all your games. having a bit weaker schedule should less hurtful when you win them all...

 

[lvbuckeye]

Which teams are we talking about?

Auburn 2004? As I have addressed already - don't schedule the Citadel then. For the record, to the extent that my memory serves, Auburn played a schedule rated 66th in 2004. OU and USC were far and away more impressive in terms of SOS that year - I think, again, going by memory, USC was the lower of the two at something like 25th.

Which others? Teams playing in shit conferences? I've explained them time and time again, and several times on this thread. I'm not inclined to do that again.

Maybe you don't read what's inside parenthesis? Cause I went back and think I made my discussion of "knowing what to do" pretty clear....

if you think the MWC was a shit conference this year, you're not looking at the facts. they were CLEARLY better than the Pac Ten, which should be blatantly obvious due to the fact that they kicked the Pac Ten's ass 6-1. the Pac Ten went, what against the Big Ten? i forget, but i know they had a winning record. i'd put the MWC head to head, top to bottom against the Big East any day of the week, and if you say you wouldn't, you'd be lying. so now arguably the 3rd best conferernce is a shit conference? please. i know you're a lawyer, and you're used to arguing shit you don't really believe around and around in circles, but no one's paying you here. look at the shit objectively. the Big Ten was a shit conference this year. the Mountain West was not. maybe that's why you hate mid-majors so much. you can't accept the fact that the Big Ten is getting passed up by the little guys. you know what? too freaking bad. you hate it so much, do something about it. that's what you say when the "mid-majors" complain about not being given a fair shake.

 

[redbenn]

the NCAA doesn't use the Sagarin ratings to determine the toughest schedule. they use the results on the field to determine who had the hardest schedule: the opposition's cumulative record. Utah had a harder schedule than Alabama and USC according to that metric. of course, i'm well aware that Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida all had tougher schedules than the Utes, but then again, they also had those nagging little things called losses. having a tough schedule shouldn't mean as much when you don't win all your games. having a bit weaker schedule should less hurtful when you win them all...

i think the difficulty of the schedule doesn't just equate to each game in a vacuum... look at texas they played 4 games in a row against #1, #11, #6, #7... Alabama is beating UGA, LSU, etc... same with other big conference teams... so you are getting challenged more, beat up, etc than you would playing in a weaker conference.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

the NCAA doesn't use the Sagarin ratings to determine the toughest schedule.

Ok?


The NCAA doesn't crown a D-I football National Champion either... why should we worry about their SOS calculations?

they use the results on the field to determine who had the hardest schedule: the opposition's cumulative record. Utah had a harder schedule than Alabama and USC according to that metric.

OK? And? Did either USC or Bama play for the title?

of course, i'm well aware that Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida all had tougher schedules than the Utes, but then again, they also had those nagging little things called losses. having a tough schedule shouldn't mean as much when you don't win all your games. having a bit weaker schedule should less hurtful when you win them all...

Maybe... I guess.. seems to me there's much more to factor in to the equation... which is why I looked at some 30 other factors I figured germane to the discussion... and even then, I don't think I covered it all.

If you're understanding me to say SOS is the end all be all, then maybe I haven't been as clear as I thought.

Truth is, I'm not even sure what you're even arguing with me for. If you want to compare Utah with someone, make it Florida. They won the Championship... not USC... Not Bama... not anyone else.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

if you think the MWC was a shit conference this year, you're not looking at the facts.

If you think I do, you haven't been reading all my posts.

Post 107 above

Either read all my posts and continue this discussion, or don't hold it against me when I ignore you.

they were CLEARLY better than the Pac Ten, which should be blatantly obvious due to the fact that they kicked the Pac Ten's ass 6-1. the Pac Ten went, what against the Big Ten? i forget, but i know they had a winning record. i'd put the MWC head to head, top to bottom against the Big East any day of the week, and if you say you wouldn't, you'd be lying. so now arguably the 3rd best conferernce is a shit conference? please. i know you're a lawyer, and you're used to arguing shit you don't really believe around and around in circles, but no one's paying you here. look at the shit objectively. the Big Ten was a shit conference this year. the Mountain West was not. maybe that's why you hate mid-majors so much. you can't accept the fact that the Big Ten is getting passed up by the little guys. you know what? too freaking bad. you hate it so much, do something about it. that's what you say when the "mid-majors" complain about not being given a fair shake.

That's great, LV... except 2008 is one season and says nothing about your Hawaii's and Boise States of years gone by.

Once again... all I ask is that you read my posts and quit making assumptions about my arguments which I have already discussed. I hope that isn't asking too much.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

and yet three times in the past 5 years, a team DID drop zero, and they still were given no chance... your explanation is lacking.

Don't let the facts get in the way with his logic.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i think the difficulty of the schedule doesn't just equate to each game in a vacuum... look at texas they played 4 games in a row against #1, #11, #6, #7... Alabama is beating UGA, LSU, etc... same with other big conference teams... so you are getting challenged more, beat up, etc than you would playing in a weaker conference.

LMAO. that argument rings hollow when you see that Utah was the one beating up on Bama.

 

[redbenn]

LMAO. that argument rings hollow when you see that Utah was the one beating up on Bama.

i was talking about the regular season and strength of schedule... not about the bowl performance of a team (and the fact you pointed out the losses with tough schedules, vs no loss with easier schedule)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Don't let the facts get in the way with his logic.

Logic? Facts? I have not ignored these objections, and I have given my rationale as to why I think the BCS is the better as between it and a playoff. As for what's lacking, neither you nor LV have done anything but rest your argument on the assumption that going 12-0 means you "deserve" something. Sorry.. I'll need more than that. Sure, it sounds nice... but... 12-0 against Ball State's 116th rated schedule... it doesn't impress me much... and, again, I've illustrated why. You're side has not given me the same courtesy.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

LMAO. that argument rings hollow when you see that Utah was the one beating up on Bama.

So, you honestly believe that one game at one point in time solves who is the better team? This gets back to Stanford v. USC last season. On the field, Stanford was the better...

Fact: The best team doesn't always win.

Appalachian State proved a lot of teams can step up for 60 minutes and beat someone they probably shouldn't. So did Stanford.... What rings hollow is substance from your side of the aisle. Pot shots and assumptions... you've got plenty... now... prove your case.

 

[PatMicMac]

One thing I don't understand is why the media, when talking about the plus one system, was debating which team would play the winner of OU-Florida for the national championship. It was my understanding that if there was going to be a plus one, the other BCS bowls would have used their original tie-ins, e.g. OU in the Fiesta, Florida in the Sugar, and that after the normal bowls were played through, the NC would become the BCS #1 and #2 after the bowl games. So in that format I guess that the pre-bowl #1 and #2 would have to win to stay #1 and #2 ... and if they choked, that would open up the window for a Utah or USC or Texas.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

One thing I don't understand is why the media, when talking about the plus one system, was debating which team would play the winner of OU-Florida for the national championship. It was my understanding that if there was going to be a plus one, the other BCS bowls would have used their original tie-ins, e.g. OU in the Fiesta, Florida in the Sugar, and that after the normal bowls were played through, the NC would become the BCS #1 and #2 after the bowl games. So in that format I guess that the pre-bowl #1 and #2 would have to win to stay #1 and #2 ... and if they choked, that would open up the window for a Utah or USC or Texas.

I would think that's just for ease of discussion. In a true plus one, I doubt the match-up would be 1 v 2, 3 v. 4, the winners meet. It'd probably be 1 v 4, 2 v. 3.