Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[Woody1968]

Eh....maybe one of the deepest, but clearly no elite teams this year. They can hang their hat on having fewer shitty teams, but they don't have a championship contender this year....unless Oregon takes care of business like they should, in which case Oregon is in.

Well, if that is the case, then why shouldn't conference champs get the automatic bid? The very fact that they are conference champs means that they did take care of business. Granted, certain major conferences are better than others in any given year, but they shouldn't be penalized for it. This is my problem with the playoff argument. A playoff is designed to create a legitimate champion by play on the field, and do away with the alleged arbitrary nature of the BCS, but there is no way to select a pool for the playoff without being MORE arbitrary than the current system, based on the number of teams involved, and the number of teams left out. The only real way to crown a 100% legitimate champion is to do away with the season entirely and just have an elimination tournament. You lose? No more games for you. At the end, you will have one undefeated team and no controversy. But that's completely ridiculous, and no one wants it. That said, the BCS is pretty good and I think it has worked pretty well. I don't see how a playoff would be more legitimate, and I don't like the idea that it could hurt the regular season like it does in every other sport that I can think of.

 

[billmac91]

Well, if that is the case, then why shouldn't conference champs get the automatic bid? The very fact that they are conference champs means that they did take care of business. Granted, certain major conferences are better than others in any given year, but they shouldn't be penalized for it. This is my problem with the playoff argument. A playoff is designed to create a legitimate champion by play on the field, and do away with the alleged arbitrary nature of the BCS, but there is no way to select a pool for the playoff without being MORE arbitrary than the current system, based on the number of teams involved, and the number of teams left out. The only real way to crown a 100% legitimate champion is to do away with the season entirely and just have an elimination tournament. You lose? No more games for you. At the end, you will have one undefeated team and no controversy. But that's completely ridiculous, and no one wants it. That said, the BCS is pretty good and I think it has worked pretty well. I don't see how a playoff would be more legitimate, and I don't like the idea that it could hurt the regular season like it does in every other sport that I can think of.

I really don't agree with any of this. If a team wins their conference championship, but with 3 losses on the season, they aren't in the football elite, and their BCS rank will reflect that. If by some chance a 3 loss team wins their conference title and is in the BCS top 12, its been a really shitty year for the top teams.

I'd rather see a 1 loss team from another conference get a bid than a 3 loss team. In this case, Iowa, Penn State, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech would get the last spot...2 loss teams as opposed to a 3 loss team.

 

[Woody1968]

I really don't agree with any of this. If a team wins their conference championship, but with 3 losses on the season, they aren't in the football elite, and their BCS rank will reflect that. If by some chance a 3 loss team wins their conference title and is in the BCS top 12, its been a really shitty year for the top teams.

I'd rather see a 1 loss team from another conference get a bid than a 3 loss team. In this case, Iowa, Penn State, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech would get the last spot...2 loss teams as opposed to a 3 loss team.

So that we have to listen to the argument that if you can't win your conference, how can you be the national champion? What about a team that is 11-1 vs a team that is 9-3, where the 9-3 team loses only OOC and the 11-1 team's only loss is to the 9-3 team, in conference. The 9-3 team is ranked 13, and the 11-1 team is ranked 4th. Everyone would complain about this, and legitimately so. Any playoff system that doesn't include the major conference champions is more of a beauty contest than the BCS.

 

[billmac91]

So that we have to listen to the argument that if you can't win your conference, how can you be the national champion? What about a team that is 11-1 vs a team that is 9-3, where the 9-3 team loses only OOC and the 11-1 team's only loss is to the 9-3 team, in conference. The 9-3 team is ranked 13, and the 11-1 team is ranked 4th. Everyone would complain about this, and legitimately so. Any playoff system that doesn't include the major conference champions is more of a beauty contest than the BCS.

Find me 1 time in the last 25 years where a team went undeafeted in a BCS conference (Big 10, Big East, Pac 10, SEC, Big 12) but lost 3 OOC games. On top of this....why would any good team lose 3 OOC games, when no one plays more than 2 challenging OOC games a year.

 

[Woody1968]

Find me 1 time in the last 25 years where a team went undeafeted in a BCS conference (Big 10, Big East, Pac 10, SEC, Big 12) but lost 3 OOC games. On top of this....why would any good team lose 3 OOC games, when no one plays more than 2 challenging OOC games a year.

It doesn't matter if it has happened or not. What matters is that it is possible that it could happen under your proposed system. Who would have predicted the Big 12 issue with the tiebreaker before last year? Yet the fact that Texas got passed up for the NC game by an Oklahoma squad that they beat is now a commonly cited case for why we should have a playoff. I'm personally more concerned that a solid team from a competitive conference could get left out for an also ran in a weak conference.

 

[billmac91]

It doesn't matter if it has happened or not. What matters is that it is possible that it could happen under your proposed system. Who would have predicted the Big 12 issue with the tiebreaker before last year? Yet the fact that Texas got passed up for the NC game by an Oklahoma squad that they beat is now a commonly cited case for why we should have a playoff. I'm personally more concerned that a solid team from a competitive conference could get left out for an also ran in a weak conference.

If this is what you're concerned about, what's your solution for USC getting the shaft, Auburn getting the shaft, Utah getting the shaft, Texas getting the shaft, TCU getting the shaft, and Cincinnati getting the shaft?

 

[Woody1968]

If this is what you're concerned about, what's your solution for USC getting the shaft, Auburn getting the shaft, Utah getting the shaft, Texas getting the shaft, TCU getting the shaft, and Cincinnati getting the shaft?

If you are referring to the past seasons, I don't think any of those teams have gotten the shaft. I think that the system worked as it was supposed to.

USC won a share of the national championship after losing to the Cal Bears. Hard to see what their complaint is.

Auburn did not play anyone, and was the consensus #3 going into the bowls. They didn't exactly blow anyone away, and the AP could have voted them #1 if they felt that the Tigers deserved it.

Utah did not play anyone in the regular season, and is in a weaker conference. I said before, if the MWC added Boise, Nevada, and Fresno State or maybe even SMU, played a championship game, I would consider that a legitimate conference worthy of an automatic BCS bid and consideration for the NC game. Right now, an undefeated MWC champ is not that impressive, even if they did beat the SEC runner up. But like 2004 Auburn, the AP could have voted them #1, they chose not to, and I think that was the right call.

Texas did not win their conference, Oklahoma did. Texas lost to Texas tech, who Oklahoma throttled. Texas should have won all their games. This is the beauty of the BCS and college football in general - Every Game counts.

TCU hasn't gotten shafted yet, but see Utah above.

Cincy hasn't gotten shafted yet, but may be the best example if they do. They will be undefeated in a BCS conference. But do you really think they would beat Florida, Alabama or Texas? As far as I am concerned, they should be ranked #4, ahead of TCU, especially if Oregon State wins tomorrow. If they beat Pittsburgh and win their bowl game against Florida or Alabama, then the AP can vote them #1. If Texas loses, I would not complain to see Cincy in the NC game.

 

[billmac91]

If you are referring to the past seasons, I don't think any of those teams have gotten the shaft. I think that the system worked as it was supposed to.

eh. I'm not sure how it worked. All of the teams I have listed have legitimate gripes. Teams were selected above them, without any real "proof" they were the better team. Let them play it out on the field instead of in the minds of voters and computers.

 

[Woody1968]

eh. I'm not sure how it worked. All of the teams I have listed have legitimate gripes. Teams were selected above them, without any real "proof" they were the better team. Let them play it out on the field instead of in the minds of voters and computers.

I added some analysis to my post - sorry that the original was so short, but I am watching the OSU/FSU basketball game, and enjoying the Wisky upset of Duke also.

 

[billmac91]

I added some analysis to my post - sorry that the original was so short, but I am watching the OSU/FSU basketball game, and enjoying the Wisky upset of Duke also.

I'm not sure what your draw to the AP poll is....the BCS title is what is recognized. Nobody really cares about the AP poll. Everyone outside of AP members, only recognize USC's BCS Title.

And to be honest...in terms of Cincy/ TCU this year......I just don;t care what anyone thinks. Even my opinion doesn't mean shit to me.....b/c I know I've been wrong in assesing match-ups before. I knew Alabama was going to rip Utah a new one last year, and guess what? Utah owned them in a big way.

Cincinnati has looked like shit in a few wins this year. Guess what? Ohio State did in 2002 too. Let the teams play it out on the field.

 

[Woody1968]

I'm not sure what your draw to the AP poll is....the BCS title is what is recognized. Nobody really cares about the AP poll. Everyone outside of AP members, only recognize USC's BCS Title.

And to be honest...in terms of Cincy/ TCU this year......I just don;t care what anyone thinks. Even my opinion doesn't mean shit to me.....b/c I know I've been wrong in assesing match-ups before. I knew Alabama was going to rip Utah a new one last year, and guess what? Utah owned them in a big way.

Cincinnati has looked like shit in a few wins this year. Guess what? Ohio State did in 2002 too. Let the teams play it out on the field.

I disagree on the AP poll. It's still a legitimate National Championship, and not even part of the BCS.

 

[billmac91]

I disagree on the AP poll. It's still a legitimate National Championship, and not even part of the BCS.

The AP takes itself too seriously, and has become a backseat passenger to the BCS Title. When the AP pulled out, they became irrelevant.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Amongst my gripes with the current system is the reliance on polls; many of which come out prior to anyone actually stepping cleat onto field.

Or, like mentioned earlier, they're from people who have vested interest in their conference or team ranking highly; especially frustrating given that these teams are often the only ones a voter might see.

A solution, should the "polls" be continued to be involved (and not the computer or strength of schedule ones- the "polls" that require human involvement): No pre-season polling; first rankings come out some time in October.

That takes away some of the challenge of overcoming an invalid bias (start out ranked low, and never able to leapfrog the teams ahead of you, no matter how well you do).

It also takes away some of the fun that fans have, and some of the BS that sportscasters fall back on when they talk about matchups.

Tradeoffs abound, yes?

 

[Woody1968]

Amongst my gripes with the current system is the reliance on polls; many of which come out prior to anyone actually stepping cleat onto field.

Or, like mentioned earlier, they're from people who have vested interest in their conference or team ranking highly; especially frustrating given that these teams are often the only ones a voter might see.

A solution, should the "polls" be continued to be involved (and not the computer or strength of schedule ones- the "polls" that require human involvement): No pre-season polling; first rankings come out some time in October.

That takes away some of the challenge of overcoming an invalid bias (start out ranked low, and never able to leapfrog the teams ahead of you, no matter how well you do).

It also takes away some of the fun that fans have, and some of the BS that sportscasters fall back on when they talk about matchups.

Tradeoffs abound, yes?

Agreed, they should not come out until after the first week or so, once everyone has played at least one game.

 

[billmac91]

Agreed, they should not come out until after the first week or so, once everyone has played at least one game.

I stated this earlier...but a part of humans brain make-up is inherent bias. If you spend the entire pre-season thinking a team is going to be especially awesome, you are likely to be biased towards them. It;s just human nature. Eliminating pre-season polls only postpones the inevitable.