• 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!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Game Thread Game Two: #1 Ohio State 24, #2 Texas 7 (9/9/06)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zurp said:
I don't know that you're being fair. The teams on your list were all arguably the top two teams in the country, regardless of their conferences. Miami was the best team in the country in 2001. The fact that they were in a weak conference at the time shouldn't take anything away from that. Nebraska lost to Miami that year, not to a generic team from a shitty conference. Same goes with Oklahoma in 2004. They lost to USC - best team in the country, not some generic team from the Pac-10.

I know that there aren't many good ways to compare conferences. And, honestly, I don't know of a very good way to compare them. I'm just thinking that your assessment wasn't very fair.
Click to expand...

Zurp,

I absolutely agree. My point was that if participation in the championship game is representative of conference strength, what trend(s) do we see. I agree that the "Best team in the land" could very well play in the worst conference. I have no doubt that each of those teams listed could "pay with" any other team in the land, and stand better than good chances of beating most teams.

Frankly, I think the best way to compare a conference is to analyze the mid level and lowest teams. The Top teams, in my view, can always match wits with another top team.. the difference is if the Big 10 number 5, for example, can play with the Big Least #1 or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
Frankly, I think the best way to compare a conference is to analyze the mid level and lowest teams. The Top teams, in my view, can always match wits with another top team.. the difference is if the Big 10 number 5, for example, can play with the Big Least #1 or whatever.
Click to expand...

So maybe Baylor should play Illinois to see which conference is better? I guess I see your point.

This reminds me of when Purdue played Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl. Was that after the 1998 season? Kansas State had been #1 in the BCS all year (ahead of Ohio State) and then lost a late game. Did they maybe lose the conference championship game? Anyway, that was arguably the #2 best team in the Big XII against the #5 team in the Big Ten. I think that the two teams combined for 7,000 pass attempts, and Purdue won that game. (IIRC.)
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
I don't know that you're being fair. The teams on your list were all arguably the top two teams in the country, regardless of their conferences. Miami was the best team in the country in 2001. The fact that they were in a weak conference at the time shouldn't take anything away from that.
Click to expand...
The argument is that conference appearances in the national title game aren't a valid measure of conference strength, because the system has produced a flawed outcome for half of the matchups it has produced.

The BCS has worked four times:

1999 Virginia Tech v. Florida State
2000 Oklahoma v. Florida State
2002 Miami, Fla. v. Ohio State
2005 Texas v. Southern Cal

The BCS has clearly failed three times:

1998 Florida State v. Tennessee (should have been: Ohio State v. Tennessee)
2001 Miami, Fla. v. Nebraska (should have been: Miami, Fla. v. Oregon or Colorado)
2003 Oklahoma v. LSU (should have been: Southern Cal v. LSU)

The BCS was, in hindsight, probably wrong two years ago as well:

2004 Oklahoma v. Southern Cal (could have been: Oklahoma or Auburn v. Southern Cal)

I believe BKB's only point is that when the sample size is so small, and half the results are wrong to boot, you can't use it as a true measure of conference strength.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
So maybe Baylor should play Illinois to see which conference is better? I guess I see your point.

This reminds me of when Purdue played Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl. Was that after the 1998 season? Kansas State had been #1 in the BCS all year (ahead of Ohio State) and then lost a late game. Did they maybe lose the conference championship game? Anyway, that was arguably the #2 best team in the Big XII against the #5 team in the Big Ten. I think that the two teams combined for 7,000 pass attempts, and Purdue won that game. (IIRC.)
Click to expand...
It was 1998, but I don't recall KSU being ahead of OSU in the BCS all year.. OSU was the 1st #1 in the BCS, I remember that... UCLA and OSU were at the top until UCLA lost to Miami and OSU to Mich. St... Flast and Tenny vaulted, and KSU ended up 3rd (with a fairly legit gripe that it should have been in front of Flast - Tenny was undefeated)

Yeah, I laughed quite a bit when KSU tanked against Purdue.

Edit - come to think of it, KSU may have enjoyed 1st or 2nd after OSU lost to Mich St. for a week or two or what not. They (KSU) ended up losing to A&M (our Sugar opponant) in the Big XII Champioinship. If I'm remembering correctly, that was their 1st loss of the year... and then Purdue made 2.
 
Upvote 0
I agree that the true strength of a confrence lies in the depth. At this point I would say that the SEC and Big ten are tops without question, with the ACC on the next level and the Big 12 and Pac 10 lagging behind




GOTP, STOLEN FROM HORNFANS

858980827_l.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Nice post Dry.

I'd have to say, Oregon over Colorado in 01, since Oregon beat up Colorado in the Rose... But then, on selection day, they had not yet played.

Anyway, I agree also that participation in the championship game has little to do with Conference strength... My point, however, was a little stronger than that, in that I insist that a weak confernce increases the probabilities that a very good team like Texas... or OU.. or USC or whomever will run the table, and thus be "over represented" in the "Big game"

If you look again, you can see that the SEC has been represented 2 times since 1998.... and while I'm no SEC fan, they are generally regarded as the top or second strongest COnf. year in and year out.

THe big 10, as you know, has had 1 rep.. OSU.. but, I'd sound like a huge homer (Or more a homer, anyway) if I advanced the postion that this was because the big 10 is so tough.. although, my being a homer, in my estimation, wouldn't change the truth of such an assertion.
 
Upvote 0
Dryden said:
The argument is that conference appearances in the national title game aren't a valid measure of conference strength, because the system has produced a flawed outcome for half of the matchups it has produced.

The BCS has worked four times:

1999 Virginia Tech v. Florida State
2000 Oklahoma v. Florida State
2002 Miami, Fla. v. Ohio State
2005 Texas v. Southern Cal

The BCS has clearly failed three times:

1998 Florida State v. Tennessee (should have been: Ohio State v. Tennessee)
2001 Miami, Fla. v. Nebraska (should have been: Miami, Fla. v. Oregon or Colorado)
2003 Oklahoma v. LSU (should have been: Southern Cal v. LSU)

The BCS was, in hindsight, probably wrong two years ago as well:

2004 Oklahoma v. Southern Cal (could have been: Oklahoma or Auburn v. Southern Cal)

I believe BKB's only point is that when the sample size is so small, and half the results are wrong to boot, you can't use it as a true measure of conference strength.
Click to expand...

A lot of folks thought that Miami should have been the choice in 2000, when they and FSU each had 1 loss and Miami won head-to-head.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
It was 1998, but I don't recall KSU being ahead of OSU in the BCS all year.. OSU was the 1st #1 in the BCS, I remember that... UCLA and OSU were at the top until UCLA lost to Miami and OSU to Mich. St... Flast and Tenny vaulted, and KSU ended up 3rd (with a fairly legit gripe that it should have been in front of Flast - Tenny was undefeated)

Yeah, I laughed quite a bit when KSU tanked against Purdue.

Edit - come to think of it, KSU may have enjoyed 1st or 2nd after OSU lost to Mich St. for a week or two or what not. They (KSU) ended up losing to A&M (our Sugar opponant) in the Big XII Champioinship. If I'm remembering correctly, that was their 1st loss of the year... and then Purdue made 2.
Click to expand...

Kansas State never reached higher than #3 in the BCS that year, although they certainly would have if they hadn't lost the CCG to aTm, since they were undefeated and #3 at the time, and UCLA had lost that same week at Miami.

Also, UCLA was #1 the first week of the BCS that year, then it was tOSU until the loss, and then Tennessee was #1 when they, UCLA, and K-St were the only 3 undefeateds left.
 
Upvote 0
Dryden said:
Good point, I forgot about that.
Click to expand...

That was the year I decided that the BCS should use this method:

1 - Take the #1 teams in the major polls. If they're different, that's the matchup.
2 - If the same team is #1 in both polls, take the #2 team if it's the same in both polls (Miami was #2 in both that year)
3 - If there are 2 different #2 teams in the major polls, let the BCS formula decide who should be the second team to go.

Of course, that's would solve the problem too often, so they couldn't do that. :tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
It was 1998, but I don't recall KSU being ahead of OSU in the BCS all year.. OSU was the 1st #1 in the BCS, I remember that... UCLA and OSU were at the top until UCLA lost to Miami and OSU to Mich. St... Flast and Tenny vaulted, and KSU ended up 3rd (with a fairly legit gripe that it should have been in front of Flast - Tenny was undefeated)
Click to expand...

I remember that OSU was #1 in both major polls. It sounds right that they were #1 in the first BCS poll, too. But I seem to remember KSU jumping from #2 to #1 in the second or third BCS poll (despite OSU remaining #1 in both human polls). But BB73 says they were never higher than #3 all year. And since I have the memory of a goldfish, I'm going to guess that he's right.

Anyway, I vote that we don't make this a "I hate the BCS" thread. Let's talk about how everyone from Texas is just compensating because they got their asses handed to them in the Civil War.
 
Upvote 0
I'd have to say, Oregon over Colorado in 01,
Click to expand...

I agree. CU lost to Fresno State early in the year (the year David Carr made himself a household name), and then to UT by a score of 41-7.

And then Chris Simms' implosion (3 int's and a fumble in the 1st half) in the CCG against Colorado cost UT the chance to play Miami for the MNC. Just as well, they would've kicked our ass.

That was one crazy week. Before that saturday started, everyone believed Florida was the second best team. Then Tennessee went down to the swamp and beat Florida for the first time in forever in a big upset. During the UT-CU championship game, the speculation was over which UT would play Miami in the Rose ensued, until Texas lost. At that point, everyone knew Tennessee was going to play Miami in the Rose, as long as they could beat a streaky 8-3 LSU team in the SEC championship game. They didn't. So at that point the argument was over whether 10-1 Neb, 10-1 Oregon, or 10-2 CU should go to the Rose, with 10-2 UF, 10-2 Tenn, and 10-2 Texas fighting over the last available BCS slot (since Nebraska had taken one of them by vitue of being BCS#2, even though they just got blown out and didn't win their own division, let alone their own conference). If I recall, TCU (one of Neb's early season opponents) played when all of this was playing out, and their win over East Carolina or some other scrub gave Neb enough SOS points to put them over Oregon in the BCS.

That is how college football decides who plays in the NC game. Horrible.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top