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

[Buckeyefrankmp]

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)

How do you pick the best team?

 

[BB73]

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.

Under the current system, it was right to leave Auburn out that year, the other two teams had more impressive seasons, and the preseason rankings weren't why Auburn was left out, it was their OOC schedule.

The lesson from that year: schedule better OOC teams

Oklahoma did indeed get lucky with Cincy and TCU, and they also got lucky that TTech came back to beat Baylor. There are always external factors, some of them involved with good or bad fortune, that lead to identifying the top two teams.

I'd like to substitute the bounce of the punt that hit Nate Clements near midfield in 1998, when tOSU was up 24-9 over MSU. for the drop of the ball by Clint Stoerner of Arkansas to hand Tennessee a win that same month. Yeah, I know on-the-field luck is different from scheduling luck.

But if the BCS results make teams think that trying to schedule teams that will be ranked when the games are played helps their chances of making the BCS Title game, I think that's good for college football. The Auburn situation, and the Oklahoma-Texas situation can be looked at that way.

Yes, I avoided your comment about a playoff. I'm just way beyond tired of all of the playoff arguments and the constant ESPN bitching about it.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

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...

Absolutely we can. How do you think Alabama got all those championships?

 

[billmac91]

Under the current system, it was right to leave Auburn out that year, the other two teams had more impressive seasons, and the preseason rankings weren't why Auburn was left out, it was their OOC schedule.

The lesson from that year: schedule better OOC teams

Oklahoma did indeed get lucky with Cincy and TCU, and they also got lucky that TTech came back to beat Baylor. There are always external factors, some of them involved with good or bad fortune, that lead to identifying the top two teams.

I'd like to substitute the bounce of the punt that hit Nate Clements near midfield in 1998, when tOSU was up 24-9 over MSU. for the drop of the ball by Clint Stoerner of Arkansas to hand Tennessee a win that same month. Yeah, I know on-the-field luck is different from scheduling luck.

But if the BCS results make teams think that trying to schedule teams that will be ranked when the games are played helps their chances of making the BCS Title game, I think that's good for college football. The Auburn situation, and the Oklahoma-Texas situation can be looked at that way.

Yes, I avoided your comment about a playoff. I'm just way beyond tired of all of the playoff arguments and the constant ESPN bitching about it.

Understood BB73. I just think it is silly people can say Oklahoma is a better team, thus deserving of the Big 12 title game because they laid it on Cincy and TCU. I've heard that several times now on talk radio. My point is, Texas could have played those teams as well, and crushed them. Or they could have scheduled Notre Dame, Clemson, Washington, Michigan and gotten unlucky that those teams suck this year. Washington could have done serious damage to our schedule strength last year.

Schedule strength doesn't really show who is the better team. Common opponents I guess, but even then it isn't definitive.

If you want the fairest system, you create a playoff. If you want a system that relies on humans (some of them being clueless, uninformed, and/or agenda driven) the BCS is beautiful.

I understand BKB's point about playoffs not always determining the best team. But neither does the BCS. There is no way to know if Michigan was better than Florida. Or Auburn better than Oklahoma/USC. Or Ohio State/FSU/KSU. At least a playoff is more fair, and allows the teams to control their own destiny.

 

[BB73]

If you want a system that relies on humans (some of them being clueless, uninformed, and/or agenda driven) the BCS is beautiful.

Can you give me an example of a clueless, uninformed poll voter?

OK, besides the Harris poll voter at the Oklahoma-Okie St game that thought Penn State was still undefeated. :tongue2:

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

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

Likewise, I've discussed how the tournament mentality does nothing but discover who's "hot" at some point in the year.

I don't think so. Teams make adjustments through the course of the year. Is the Ohio State team that beat Michigan the same team that got killed by USC? No. There has been adjustments to the QB, Offensive Line and our Running Back is healthy. Plays are worked out during the course of the year. To say a team just got "hot" is a little short sighted. These teams might finally be "clicking" and all the pieces are working the way they should.

 

[billmac91]

Can you give me an example of a clueless, uninformed poll voter?

OK, besides the Harris poll voter at the Oklahoma-Okie St game that thought Penn State was still undefeated. :tongue2:

Trev Alberts....but seriously, why does Brenston Buckner have a vote? Or Tommy Vardell? A former PGA Tour executive.

Clueless, uninformed voter is no doubt hyperbole, but what makes them so qualified to determine who is better between Texas and Oklahoma or any other rankings argument.

The list of voters is littered with AM talk show hosts (those guys are never biased).

Rivals.com College Football - Harris Poll voters: Who are these guys?

And that's just 1/3. Another third is college coaches who allow SID's to fill out their polls (just ask JT :) )

Seriously, how are coaches capable of giving an honest assesment in bewteen their games on Saturday, and gameplanning Sunday-Friday. I listened to a Bob Stoops interview where they asked him about Florida vs. Bama and he said he couldn't really give an assement b/c he hasn't really watched either play. He's too busy focusing on his team and opponents. And again, I'm sure coaches voting in the polls aren't biased or agenda driven either.

 

[Gatorubet]

I don't think so. Teams make adjustments through the course of the year. Is the Ohio State team that beat Michigan the same team that got killed by USC? No. There has been adjustments to the QB, Offensive Line and our Running Back is healthy. Plays are worked out during the course of the year. To say a team just got "hot" is a little short sighted. These teams might finally be "clicking" and all the pieces are working the way they should.

That is a semantic distinction without a difference, IMO. Whether a team is "hot" or found to be "clicking" later in the season, it is the same thing. And if we can ignore the fact that a team lost three games early on, but now is "clicking", it cheapens the championship to let that team play for it all whatever their current level of competence.

Part of the implied rules could be said to include a requirment that you do not suck at any point in the season. A two loss LSU should never get a shot absent a weird rash of upsets producing no undefeated teams, and not that many stellar one win teams.

 

[BB73]

Clueless, uninformed voter is no doubt hyperbole

My example was actually a real one, there was a Hariis voter that told a reporter at the Oklahoma game on Saturday that he thought Penn State would play Bama in the NC game since they were the only two undefeated teams. The voter was Pat Quinn, a former Okie St. SID. Hopefully, that guy won't be getting a vote next year.

sportingnews.com/blog_

I agree that the coaches probably don't see most of the teams play until their regular season is over. The fact that they have to make their final ballot public may mean that that one is at least carefully considered by the vast majority.

The fact that the BCS rankings were used to settle the Big 12 South this week, before the voting is made public, is a conference issue.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

And if we can ignore the fact that a team lost three games early on, but now is "clicking", it cheapens the championship to let that team play for it all whatever their current level of competence.

Do you think a three loss team could beat USC, Florida and Texas in consecutive weeks?

 

[txp135]

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.

Nova and Georgetown were from the same conference. So the Championship obviously went to the correct conference, the only team that felt slighted was Georgetown.

Nova can't really happen in the system that I proposed just because they would be eliminated by Georgetown (conference champion) and wouldn't make it to the 12 team playoff. The only team that would really be slighted this year would be OK if they happen to lose to Cincy in the NC game. So the worst case would be a 1-1 split between OK and Cincy.

Let's say that a very mild version of the Nova scenario happens in the Big12 this year with OK being the 1 seed and Mizzou being the 12 seed in this playoffs. This means that Mizzou lost once in the reg season and once in the conference champ game (annihilated everyone else to earn top 12 ranking). I don't see how OK losing to Mizzou is going to be any worse for them than losing to a team from another conference (which Mizzou would've eliminated in the case they are allowed to play).

For example, if PSU didn't lose to IA this year and get into the NC game through the playoffs and lose the final game. I'd rather lose to tOSU in the NC game than any other team because this would mean that PSU and tOSU already beat USC, Big12, and SEC teams in the playoffs enroute to the rematch. This is better than an undeserved "Big10 is weak" stereotyping when there aren't that many games played between the top teams.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't think so. Teams make adjustments through the course of the year. Is the Ohio State team that beat Michigan the same team that got killed by USC? No. There has been adjustments to the QB, Offensive Line and our Running Back is healthy. Plays are worked out during the course of the year. To say a team just got "hot" is a little short sighted. These teams might finally be "clicking" and all the pieces are working the way they should.

Yeah... good for Ohio State... they should have played better against SC...

See... for me, every game matters. It's not short sighted at all... indeed, it's quite the opposite.. I count everything. you want to win the college football NC? Then you'd better bring it EVERY week... not just November.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Nova and Georgetown were from the same conference. So the Championship obviously went to the correct conference, the only team that felt slighted was Georgetown.

Nova can't really happen in the system that I proposed just because they would be eliminated by Georgetown (conference champion) and wouldn't make it to the 12 team playoff. The only team that would really be slighted this year would be OK if they happen to lose to Cincy in the NC game. So the worst case would be a 1-1 split between OK and Cincy.

Let's say that a very mild version of the Nova scenario happens in the Big12 this year with OK being the 1 seed and Mizzou being the 12 seed in this playoffs. This means that Mizzou lost once in the reg season and once in the conference champ game (annihilated everyone else to earn top 12 ranking). I don't see how OK losing to Mizzou is going to be any worse for them than losing to a team from another conference (which Mizzou would've eliminated in the case they are allowed to play).

For example, if PSU didn't lose to IA this year and get into the NC game through the playoffs and lose the final game. I'd rather lose to tOSU in the NC game than any other team because this would mean that PSU and tOSU already beat USC, Big12, and SEC teams in the playoffs enroute to the rematch. This is better than an undeserved "Big10 is weak" stereotyping when there aren't that many games played between the top teams.

The correct conference? What the hell? Are we all chanting "Big Ten!" at games like the idiot SEC fans we make fun of?

Fact is - in your system you allow teams who cannot stake a legitimate claim to the title, a shot at that title. Until you can resolve that, I'm not sure we have much to talk about.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How do you pick the best team?

You're not gonna like my answer....

but...

The BCS seems up to the task.....

Sure it's flawed.... but it DOES seek to discern which team is the best... actually.. which two... and then says "have at it."

Oddly enough it IS a playoff.... between two teams.

 

[sandgk]

A two loss LSU should never get a shot absent a weird rash of upsets

I was looking for a definition of the Nutria itch (as we have a user whose name is Nutriaitch), could a weird rash of upsets inflicted on the CFB world by a 2 loss LSU team fit the bill?