The BCS isn't the problem, it's Pre Season Polls

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Didn't ask who the champ is.. I asked who the BEST TEAM is...

Glad you brought up Villanova... Villanova beat Georgetown 1 time in 4 tries in 1985. Georgetown 3-1... Nova 1-3.... But, add in some arbitrary time (March) and all of a sudden you're all starry eyed for Nova... I call bull[censored]. Upsets happen. Do you think Stanford 07 was a better team than USC 07? Sometimes results on the field DO NOT equal reality.

I want my champion to be the BEST team in the land... not the "hot team" during some arbitrary time. That's one of the things that's great about college football... we get the BEST... yes, we argue about it.. but that's also what's great about college football...

You playoff folks are [Edit: over the top, deleted] for trying to take it away from the game.

And, I should say, I used to be a play-off proponant... but... then I thought about what I was really asking for.

Lets see:
Week 7: Texas over OU
Week 10: Texas Tech over Texas
Week 13: OU over Texas Tech

Week 14: OU jumps Texas in BCS
What we are seeing here is OU and Texas have won at some arbitrary time (November) now they have a better chance to be named the "best" team than Texas Tech. Let's overlook the fact that Texas Tech has beaten Texas. Let's also overlook the fact that Texas has beaten OU, but OU has a better chance to be called the "best" team. How is this better than a the NCAA Basketball tourney we have been discussing? Please do not say this is the exception to the rule.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The other thing that people tend to forget is that Kansas State finished #3 in the BCS that year, tOSU was 4th (but they were the 'Best' team that year).

FSU was helped in the computers by playing aTm in one of the kickoff classic games at the start of the year, a game that I believe tOSU passed on that year.

And the human polls went for FSU over tOSU because their loss was earlier in the year.

I do remember the timing of the loss being an issue for me. I'm not concerned so much about when a team losses. Who you lose to is more important, far as I'm concerned. If memory serves, FSU lost to NC State... the Buckeyes to Michigan State... I don't recall who between NC State and MSU was the better... probably about the same, really... But, the "time" of the loss, to me, is a stupid reason to rate someone here or there.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Lets see:
Week 7: Texas over OU
Week 10: Texas Tech over Texas
Week 13: OU over Texas Tech

Week 14: OU jumps Texas in BCS
What we are seeing here is OU and Texas have won at some arbitrary time (November) now they have a better chance to be named the "best" team than Texas Tech. Let's overlook the fact that Texas Tech has beaten Texas. Let's also overlook the fact that Texas has beaten OU, but OU has a better chance to be called the "best" team. How is this better than a the NCAA Basketball tourney we have been discussing? Please do not say this is the exception to the rule.

As I said, upsets happen... so what? Was Stanford better than USC in 2007? If you say, and argue YES, then we can continue on your alleged point here. It's easy to see a worse team beating a better team when the difference is vast... but... not so much when it's closer... I don't care about the Big XII 3 step... doesn't bother me in the least... they're all very good teams, and I can't tell you who's the best...

but.. I sure can argue about it...

and THATS what's great about college football.

Besides, the burden in on the Play off proponents to prove that their idea solves something... and so far you're failing... Saying "Well, this system is broken.. lets replace it with a different broken system" is unpersuasive.

 

[mross34]

I do remember the timing of the loss being an issue for me. I'm not concerned so much about when a team losses. Who you lose to is more important, far as I'm concerned.

This is where I've always been conflicted. Who do you punish more? A team that gets upset by an underdog, or a team that gets beat by another good team?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Perhaps I need to clarify....

I do not suggest that this system, or the old system... or really ANY system fundamentally SOLVES the "who's the best" argument. My point in this is NOT that Team A and Team B will play each other in the BCS Championship game and that settles it...

Not even close...

But... it's a piece of the pie... it's something else we can argue about.

The point, for me, is Not "the BCS determines who's the best - end of discussion" My point is - it is DESIGNED to make that determination... it tries.. we can argue about it... sure... A playoff isn't even designed for the purpose, so stop bullshitting me.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This is where I've always been conflicted. Who do you punish more? A team that gets upset by an underdog, or a team that gets beat by another good team?

For me, in a vacuum, USC tanking to Stanford is WORSE.. far far worse.. than USC losing to Oregon.

 

[mross34]

For me, in a vacuum, USC tanking to Stanford is WORSE.. far far worse.. than USC losing to Oregon.

But can you see the other side of the argument?

USC sleepwalked into the stadium that day against Stanford.

USC came ready to play and got outplayed by Oregon.

They both seem equally bad to me in entirely different ways.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

But can you see the other side of the argument?

USC sleepwalked into the stadium that day against Stanford.

USC came ready to play and got outplayed by Oregon.

They both seem equally bad to me in entirely different ways.

Yeah, I guess... but.. if you want to be the best, then.. don't sleep walk... and if you do.. well.. there's a heavy price..

I would try to encourage the best play, across the board. This is part of the reason that "running it up" doesn't much bother me. It's not Bob Stoops job to stop OU from scoring... and leaving his starter in when the game is out of hand does contain risk - score this extra TD against Baylor costs him Bradford for the rest of the season, for example... Don't want to get beat down? Fine... get better.

So, in that way, I'd say I'd still punish the sleep walking more. Plus, Oregon beating a prepared SC is still more "understandable" than Stanford winning.. I mean, Oregon was decent last year... Stanford was dreadful.

 

[BB73]

This is where I've always been conflicted. Who do you punish more? A team that gets upset by an underdog, or a team that gets beat by another good team?

The computers penalize the team with the bad loss (as they are supposed to), and that's how the situation occurs where a team with a head-to-head win over somebody else gets a bad loss and drops below the team they beat. This causes the whining from teams like 1993 1-loss ND (beat FSU who finished #1), and 2000 1-loss Miami (beat FSU, who finished #2 BCS to Miami's #3, and thus played Oklahoma in the BCS Title game).

To me, that's why the body of work thing comes into play. Which good teams did each team beat, and where were those games played, etc.?

I agree with bkb that the timing of the losses should be almost meaningless.

And the concept of trying to match up two teams in the Title game that will 'create an exciting game' is total BS to me. The two teams that did the most over the season to earn the top 2 spots are who should be in the game, period - regardless of what some folks think of the matchup, the TV ratings, or any other crap.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Perhaps I need to clarify....

I do not suggest that this system, or the old system... or really ANY system fundamentally SOLVES the "who's the best" argument. My point in this is NOT that Team A and Team B will play each other in the BCS Championship game and that settles it...

Not even close...

But... it's a piece of the pie... it's something else we can argue about.

The point, for me, is Not "the BCS determines who's the best - end of discussion" My point is - it is DESIGNED to make that determination... it tries.. we can argue about it... sure... A playoff isn't even designed for the purpose, so stop bull[censored]ting me.

Why isn't a playoff designed to prove the best team? Could you not call a team that beats, lets say, USC, Texas and Florida in three consecutive weeks the best team?

If it is this difficult to name the best team, they should not name a national champ. Lets not label the best team. We would just have conference champs.

 

[txp135]

Sure... that's great... now... what do you do when Cincy get's Hot and wins the NC? You ready to call them the "best" team of 2008? Of course not. They're not even in the damn conversation, but your formulation gives them the opportunity. [censored] that.

Honestly, what if tOSU wins it? Sure, Cincy got blown out at OK at the beginning of the season, but TT just got blown out as well. This system favors highly ranked teams already. And no rematches means that each conference gets the maximum chance to win it all. Cincy is still a 10-2 team. You are probably worried more about an ACC team making a run. BC for example, all 3 of their losses are to ACC teams. If it was the SEC, then everyone would be writing about how the tough SEC conference kill any chance of them being a NC contender! This system would eliminate that as well.

What about LSU last year with 2 losses and 3-4 close wins that they had to pull tricks out of their hats to survive? They got hot 1 game and brought home the trophy. How about if Cincy didn't schedule OK this year and wasn't upset by Uconn? They could waltz right into the NC game and only need to get hot for one game. If they beat tOSU, AL, PSU/TX, and then USC/FLA/OK/TT in a row then why wouldn't you call them the best team? Which teams out of those will complain?


Not to mention the unbelievable matchups we miss out. Be honest, did you really want that 2005 tOSU team to play against ND? Sure, it's nice to blow up ND, but you'd probably wanted OK. How about OrSU in the Rose Bowl if they didn't lose to Oregon? PSU already played them and sure as hell didn't want to play them again this season.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Honestly, what if tOSU wins it? Sure, Cincy got blown out at OK at the beginning of the season, but TT just got blown out as well. This system favors highly ranked teams already. And no rematches means that each conference gets the maximum chance to win it all. Cincy is still a 10-2 team. You are probably worried more about an ACC team making a run. BC for example, all 3 of their losses are to ACC teams. If it was the SEC, then everyone would be writing about how the tough SEC conference kill any chance of them being a NC contender! This system would eliminate that as well.

What about LSU last year with 2 losses and 3-4 close wins that they had to pull tricks out of their hats to survive? They got hot 1 game and brought home the trophy. How about if Cincy didn't schedule OK this year and wasn't upset by Uconn? They could waltz right into the NC game and only need to get hot for one game. If they beat tOSU, AL, PSU/TX, and then USC/FLA/OK/TT in a row then why wouldn't you call them the best team? Which teams out of those will complain?

Pete Carroll

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why isn't a playoff designed to prove the best team? Could you not call a team that beats, lets say, USC, Texas and Florida in three consecutive weeks the best team?

If it is this difficult to name the best team, they should not name a national champ. Lets not label the best team. We would just have conference champs.

I've outlined that several times already....

The NCAA tourney is a great example, and the Nova over Gtown a perfect situation for my point that it's not designed to find the best team.

Likewise, I've discussed how the tournament mentality does nothing but discover who's "hot" at some point in the year... So it happens at the end of the year... great... Can I say that Ohio State was the National Champion of week 1 because they beat YSU? No? Why not? It's an arbitrary time-frame... who about when they pole axed MSU? Such a great week, I think we should award them a National Championship for it... Northwestern week and Michigan week two... Why not? It happened during the season.

I don't have a problem with having conference champs and leaving it at that. The Bowl system used to be a reward for a great season... and I see no problem with it. Winning the b10 would become meanigful again (More meaningful, I mean)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Honestly, what if tOSU wins it?

Im happy because I'm an OSU fan.... don't confuse that with whether or not I think I could argue with a straight face that OSU is the best team of the year...

Sure, Cincy got blown out at OK at the beginning of the season, but TT just got blown out as well. This system favors highly ranked teams already. And no rematches means that each conference gets the maximum chance to win it all. Cincy is still a 10-2 team. You are probably worried more about an ACC team making a run. BC for example, all 3 of their losses are to ACC teams. If it was the SEC, then everyone would be writing about how the tough SEC conference kill any chance of them being a NC contender! This system would eliminate that as well.

I don't really care what team makes a run... if they're a 3 loss team... just like I feel about Nova.. they really don't deserve to be there in the first place. If the NCAA tournament was just 16 teams in 1985, Nova wouldn't have even been there.... Georgetown would have.

If you want a playoff, it should MAYBE be 4 teams.... maybe. Because once you get to 5, in my opinion (and it's just my opinion), you're on thin ice as for what you "deserve."

What about LSU last year with 2 losses and 3-4 close wins that they had to pull tricks out of their hats to survive? They got hot 1 game and brought home the trophy. How about if Cincy didn't schedule OK this year and wasn't upset by Uconn? They could waltz right into the NC game and only need to get hot for one game. If they beat tOSU, AL, PSU/TX, and then USC/FLA/OK/TT in a row then why wouldn't you call them the best team? Which teams out of those will complain?

I would argue that LSU, even with two losses was - unfortunately for OSU - the best team of 2007. Hell they had to be outstanding just to get past Les Miles idiocy.

 

[billmac91]

The other thing that people tend to forget is that Kansas State finished #3 in the BCS that year, tOSU was 4th (but they were the 'Best' team that year).

FSU was helped in the computers by playing aTm in one of the kickoff classic games at the start of the year, a game that I believe tOSU passed on that year.

And the human polls went for FSU over tOSU because their loss was earlier in the year.

it'd be nice to see the teams play it out though. We have no idea of Auburn was the best team, but you're comfortbale leaving them out b/c of a non-conference match-up. How does that prove/disprove they were/weren't the best team?

Oklahoma is lucky as hell Cincy and TCU were on their schedule this year, and they're having great years. When were those games scheduled? And why does it matter....truthfully....Texas would also have handed it to Cincy and TCU, but Oklahoma gets the nod. It's just silly. Why is it USC's fault the PAC 10 sucks? They tried to schedule a big time OOC game, handled their business, lost 1 game due to a horrendous half, and their season is killed. It's just stupid.

Playoff please. Let them settle it on the field against each other.