Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » The Official BCS Blows Thread (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Official BCS Blows Thread
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
It's never too early to start bashing the sports world's worst method of crowning a champion.

Texas could win out and still not play USC, how sick is that? What about a crappy Big East champ going to a BCS bowl....

Will we see a playoff in our lifetime?

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thegreatgrundle
Member
Member # 1921

 - posted      Profile for thegreatgrundle   Email thegreatgrundle   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hopefully not. Because then all the college football guys wouldn't have anything to scream about.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, we can beat USC and that *should* help Texas make it [Smile]

The Big East is pretty awful this year. Maybe Louisville will recover and finish strong.

As for a playoff....only if the president's realize how stupid they are being -- of course, the bowl money makes that about impossible, so I'd vote against seeing a playoff anytime soon.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
A playoff will never happen. There's no incentive to do so financially for the BCS conferences.

And the Irish are an impressive team this year...Weis is going to win coach of the year...but they have no chance against USC.

I'm not a big USC fan or anything, but they are simply deadly at every position. White is incredible. Their offensive line is freakishly good.

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sky -- I agree it will be tough...but I don't think a blowout is gonna happen. I think Charlie's proven he can make adjustments very quickly when necessary -- and hopefully that limits USC's 2nd half advantage....

All I know is that stuff is getting a bit out of hand around here...when parking passes are going for well over $100 (heck, I even saw one on Ebay for over $300), it's a pretty good indicator of how crazy folks are...

Either way, it's gonna be a fun Saturday [Big Grin] (I almost wish I could have about three TV's with me in the stadium because there are a lot of good games to be played).

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post 
I think college football is too big to be able to reasonably crown a champion. The NFL has 32 teams, and whoever wins the Super Bowl has to play ~16 games. Almost every game in the NFL is reasonably competitive ("any given Sunday").

In NCAA football there are over 300 teams, and whoever wins the championship plays ~12 games.

Want to assume that only the major conference teams have a chance to win a championship? Fine, but also consider that those teams play a number of non-competitive "cupcake" teams, reducing the number of competitive games they have to play. The ratio of championship contendors to competitive games played drops to maybe 40/8.

The BCS system of crowning a champion isn't workable, but I don't think a playoff would fairly crown a champion either. There's just too many teams and not enough games.

Why not just root for your team to win its conference and hope they get to go to a bowl game?

[ October 13, 2005, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: TCB ]

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
TCB -- Super Bowl winner plays 16 reg season games, 4 pre-season *games*, and a min. of 3 playoff games (4 if they don't get a bye). You have to make the playoffs to win it all.

Should be a similar principle in football. I think after 12 games it's easy enough to tell who's real and who isn't. Heck, maybe we could even use the BCS rankings to tell us who the top 8 teams in the country are -- then they can play each other for it all. Workable system in place. Yay.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The obvious question that comes to my mind is this. Why must we have a national championship for college football?

We have broken down the teams into conferences in which the teams mostly play each other. For a long time we had a system of bowl games to pit the leading teams of different conferences against each other. In much the same way that there are rivalries between teams there are rivalries between conferences and the bowl games gave us a way to pit the best temas from the conferences in a rivalry against each other to see which was best this year.

The number of teams in college football make the only fair way to determine the best team an extended playoff, but because of the problems with having such a large playoff system, and our apparent need to crown a national champion, we chose to create this BCS system in which we coopt the traditional bowl game system and pick some nationally "worthy" teams to play against each other and declare the winner the national champion. The problem that I have here is that we are arbitrarily choosing the teams which get to play for the national championship, and while some years the choices may be clear, in other years it is far from clear who deserves the chance. In those years, a worthy team from a conference which isn't respected by those making the choice gets left sitting on the sidelines while those teams from nationally respected conferences get to play for the championship.

All of this brings me back to my original question. Why must we have a national championship for college football? I have grown up watching the Big10 and could care less about most teams outside of it. I say bring the traditional bowl system back and crown the winners of traditional conference rivalries, there is no need for a national championship in college football.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, it would take 7 weeks to hold a playoff for 128 teams which is less than half of the college teams out there based on TCB's numbers.

There are apparently 22 Division 1A conferences in the NCAA. You could have a 4 week playoff and take the conference champions of 16 of those conferences and tell the other 6 conferences to pound sand, or you can have a 5 week playoff with 22 conference champions and 10 wildcards. There is currently a 12 week season, so the question that comes to my mind is, if we were to hold a 5 week playoff, how much do we shorten the regular season in order to accomodate it?

If it were up to me we would go back to the traditional bowl games, but if most people feel that we need to have a national champion, than I suggest that we shorten the regular season to 10 weeks and hold a five week playoff with all of the conference champions and wildcard teams to fill out the field. This may lead to nonconference games virtually disappearing for most teams until the playoffs, but it seems that to have a true national football championship we must make some kind of sacrafice. This may also force certain teams that have tried to stay independent of conferences to join one, again sacrafices to the altar of the national championship.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
1) My Irish aren't joining a conference. End of story. Or at least not until N(d)BC quits airing our home games [Big Grin]

2) There are ~119 Div.1-A football schools. The rest of the Div.1 football schools are AA (for example, the Ivy League is 1-AA). (And 1-AA does have a playoff...Jim Tressel of OSU won a few of these while at Youngstown State).

3) Of these 119 or so schools, about half (65 or so) are in the BCS conferences (or are ND). Of the non-BCS teams, the best of them are normally obliterated by mid/top tier BCS squads, thus, only a couple of them would be worthy of discussion in a playoff.

4) So, we're down to about 65 teams worthy of being in a playoff. And of these, let's say half don't have a winning record (the Indiana's and Vandy's of the world), so let's toss them out of the playoff discussion.

5) Now we're down to 32 teams into a playoff. I'd be willing to cut it in half again because some of those with winning records have probably lost at least 2 or 3 conference games -- if you can't even be in the top tier of your conference, then why should you make the playoff? Nope, you shouldn't...out ya go!

6) Down to 16 teams at this point...that's a 4 week playoff of 15 games. That sounds reasonable to me. We could probably set up a small little tourney using some of the bowl games to let these squads play...maybe the losers could play some bowls using conference affiliations...try to make everyone happy. The rest of the bowl games could keep the current affiliations.

On to the question of why should a playoff exist: Because every other sport sanctioned by the NCAA has a playoff.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, I have a slight addiction to college football. [Big Grin] (Fortunately the wife to be...in a week...understands. Now if I could just get a TV at the reception...)
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Oh, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, I have a slight addiction to college football. [Big Grin] (Fortunately the wife to be...in a week...understands. Now if I could just get a TV at the reception...)
Congratulations!

quote:
1) My Irish aren't joining a conference. End of story. Or at least not until N(d)BC quits airing our home games [Big Grin]
I don't think that they should have to. I just think that a playoff situation might change conditions enough to cause the independants to feel pressure to join a conference.

quote:
2) There are ~119 Div.1-A football schools. The rest of the Div.1 football schools are AA (for example, the Ivy League is 1-AA). (And 1-AA does have a playoff...Jim Tressel of OSU won a few of these while at Youngstown State).
Are you sure that there are only 119 Div.1A teams? My, admittedly brief, research showed 22 Div.1A conferences which would come to approximately 5 or 6 teams per conference if there are only 119 Div.1A teams. I thought that the lower divisions used a playoff system, but I wasn't sure and wasn't going to put my foot in my mouth over it if I wasn't sure. Why doesn't the NCAA model the Div.1A national championship after all the other divisions championships?

quote:
3) Of these 119 or so schools, about half (65 or so) are in the BCS conferences (or are ND). Of the non-BCS teams, the best of them are normally obliterated by mid/top tier BCS squads, thus, only a couple of them would be worthy of discussion in a playoff.

4) So, we're down to about 65 teams worthy of being in a playoff. And of these, let's say half don't have a winning record (the Indiana's and Vandy's of the world), so let's toss them out of the playoff discussion.

5) Now we're down to 32 teams into a playoff. I'd be willing to cut it in half again because some of those with winning records have probably lost at least 2 or 3 conference games -- if you can't even be in the top tier of your conference, then why should you make the playoff? Nope, you shouldn't...out ya go!

6) Down to 16 teams at this point...that's a 4 week playoff of 15 games. That sounds reasonable to me. We could probably set up a small little tourney using some of the bowl games to let these squads play...maybe the losers could play some bowls using conference affiliations...try to make everyone happy. The rest of the bowl games could keep the current affiliations.

Unless my research was wrong, there are 22 Div.1A conferences. I am going to recheck that this weekend when I have more time. If there is going to be a playoff, every Div.1A conference champion should be in it. This would push things up to a 32 team 5 week 31 game playoff, which I could live with. Each Conference would send its top team and the remaining slots would be chosen from among the rest. One important question would be how those remaining teams are chosen, best record, strength of schedule weighted best record, something else?

quote:
On to the question of why should a playoff exist: Because every other sport sanctioned by the NCAA has a playoff.
Well my question wasn't why should a playoff exist, but why should a national championship exist, but I think that this point does answer that question. Now the question is, why do we insist on the asanine BCS when we can have a playoff system instead like every other NCAA sancioned sport as well as the other divisions of NCAA football.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Are you sure that there are only 119 Div.1A teams? My, admittedly brief, research showed 22 Div.1A conferences which would come to approximately 5 or 6 teams per conference if there are only 119 Div.1A teams. I thought that the lower divisions used a playoff system, but I wasn't sure and wasn't going to put my foot in my mouth over it if I wasn't sure. Why doesn't the NCAA model the Div.1A national championship after all the other divisions championships?
Some of those 22 Div.1A conferences play 1-AA in football. All 22 are 1-A basketball, but only about 10 of them are 1-A football. As an example, the Ivy league is Div.1, but is 1-AA for football. The only reason not to institute a playoff is because of the money.

IIRC, the 1-A football conferences are Big East, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC, MAC, C-USA, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt...there might be one or two others, but I think that's it [Smile]

Some of the 1-AA conferences include the Ivy, Patriot, Horizon, A-10, etc. (Most 1-AA football conferences are 1 for basketball).

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IrishTD,

Mea culpa. I was too hasty in my brief research yesterday. There are only 11 Div.1A football conferences. Somehow I counted each conference twice, probably since I dumped a list of Div.1A conference names into a file one per line and did a line count. I must have had each conference listed twice and since I was being so hasty I must not have taken the time to double check my list for repeats. Also 119 teams across 11 conferences is 10.8 teams per conference which makes that number seem much more accurate than I had thought before.

So you are correct in that a 4 week playoff would work. My prediction of the necessity of a 5 week playoff was based on my inaccurate count of the number of conferences. In my opinion, as long as you can include the top team from each conference and allow some wildcards so as to include teams like the Fighting Irish, a playoff is the best way to go.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No problem Dave. It happens occassionally. As I said, I have a slight addiction to college football. (ok, it could just be football in general).
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foliated
Member
Member # 2041

 - posted      Profile for foliated   Email foliated   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My main objection: nobody knows how it's scored.

Think about it:

1. nobody really knows how the pollsters vote or what criteria they (I mean all of them) use.

2. There are proprietary computer ranking systems. So who knows how those numbers are generated?

The mob could have, say, jeff sagarin in its pocket, and if they're careful enough not to make him give absolutely ridiculous rankings, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

At least with a system like the colley matrix (one of the other computer rankings used), there's a complete enough description of the method available to reproduce it oneself if one likes (not that I've done it myself, mind you. It just looks that way from my reading of the paper on Colley's website.)

And even if they didn't, having at least two proprietary methods implies what I said at the top of this post: nobody knows how it's scored.

[ November 17, 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: foliated ]

Posts: 123 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
well USC being #1 all season and playing only 2 teams that were ranked when they played makes you wonder. Frankly I dont follow west coast college football enough to really even know just how tuff USC's conference is. I watch mainly SEC football and UGA in particular. We lost to Florida and Auburn. Not by much either. And aside from playing Vanderbilt and Kentucky, everyone we played was at least top 20. Loosing to florida dropped us out of the top ten two weeks ago, and loosing by 1 point dropped us to 14 last week.

So my gripe is this, a lot of teams have played much harder teams. The BCS ranking doesnt start until several weeks into the season. That means teams riding at the top of the coaches poll, if they have been largely untested in regard to competition, start out with a tremendous advantage. As long as you dont loose you tend to stay exactly where you were prior to the BCS rank. For example UGA was 4 before the BCS rankings for three weeks. then the week we went idle we dropped to 7, even though we hadn't lost. But if you loose during the BCS ranking period you tend to drop like a stone. No ammount of winning will let you rise at the same rate. So if you are going to loose its best to do it prior to the BCS ranking that starts in October.

My whole point is that UGA this year will have beat 3 top ten teams and 3 top twenty teams. Assuming they go on to beat LSU in the SEC championship, they will also have beaten another top 5 team. And unless USC and Miami loose, UGA wont even be in the running for a shot at the title even though they played possibly the hardest schedual in college football this year based on the coaches poll/bsc ranking of opponents faced. USC has a 13th and 15th ranked opponent and they get a shot at the trophy?

Texas has had a pretty easy schedual as well. ND, Penn state have more valid claims to the championship than USC.


The point is that all USC really has going for it is humiliating scores run up against vastly inferior opponents. But put USC up against a season's worth of smashnose worthy opponents, and they wouldnt have the luxery of coasting through a season. What they have done is impressive, but its also hollow. If all the SEC could muster up was a bunch of Kentucky clones, and UGA destroyed them weekly, I would hold the same standard.

Without a real playoff, faux champions like USC and Texas is all we will get. Of course Fresno could knock off USC, just as Miami just got smacked by GA Tech. In which case the real cream of college football might rise to the top.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I honestly think that there should be NO polls until after 2 weeks into the conference schedules. The early season polling really screws things up badly, because people refuse to drop teams that they had picked prior to the season.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
Not again.

Looks like Oregon is going to get hosed by the BCS once again.

Two at-large berths available, with Notre Dame, Ohio State and Oregon all trying to squeeze in. ND is an automatic, but Ohio State over Oregon?

OSU has two losses, against ranked teams, and have beaten one ranked team. Oregon has one loss against a ranked team and has beaten one ranked team.

OSU's opponents have 48 losses. Oregon's opponents have 53.

The clincher I guess is Oregon playing Montana. Still Montana is a two-time Div 1AA champ, and could probably compare favorably to 2-9 Illinois.

I'm sure OSU will get the nod, but it seems fairly suspect for a two-loss team to get chosen ahead of Oregon, especially when Oregon is ahead of OSU in the BCS ranking.

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sky --

Bowls are all about putting butts in seats (stadium and TV)...Oregon may travel well, but the don't have the national appeal that OSU and ND do. If I'm Oregon, I'm hoping I can somehow sneak into the #3 or #4 spot in the BCS (not gonna happen). Same principle applies to bowl tie-ins with conferences...2nd place team doesn't always get the second choice bowl (can't think of examples, but I see this in almost any column about bowl predictions).

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kosmic_Fool
Member
Member # 2076

 - posted      Profile for Kosmic_Fool   Email Kosmic_Fool   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Another potential reason is the difference in the two teams' performances against the best teams in college football, which is something that Bowl selectors would also be looking for to make their Bowl a great game.

Oregon vs. USC -- 45-13 USC
Ohio State vs. Texas -- 25-22 Texas

Aside from that: OSU has faced and beaten more ranked teams than Oregon, and the team rankings of the teams faced by OSU were almost always higher (with the obvious exception of USC). The average rank of a team beaten by OSU was 19; the average rank of a team beaten by Oregon was 21.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
Irish--I know, unfortunately the BIG BOWLS are all about which team travels well. Oregon has a pretty big fan base, but they just don't have the history of OSU.

Still, I'd rather see Oregon have a shot. The BCS looks more out of whack when you think about a team like West Virginia, or dare I say it...South Florida! getting an automatic berth from the Big East.

While Oregon will probably end up playing Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl...

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vtpeggeylc
New Member
Member # 2679

 - posted      Profile for vtpeggeylc   Email vtpeggeylc       Edit/Delete Post 
The Big East needs to get kicked out of BCS. Anyone who has to advertise that they get a BCS Bowl Bid (while showing off a MAC-tacular new logo) is sad & sorry and needs to be put down. [Embarrassed]

And as imperfect as the BCS is, it is still better than what we had in the early 90's--bowl bids going out in mid OCTOBER.... [Eek!] But I'm only saying that because VT used to start slow, not get a bowl bid, finish strong and stay at home to watch teams they beat play on tv over the holidays. (UVa v. Tenn, 1990) [Wink]

And they've been *naming* a national champion long before the BCS was created, which implies that someone felt it was necessary.... [Razz]

Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I'm not big on the Big East having an auto bid (at least they had a case when Miami and VT was in the league)...and the ACC didn't really deserve it (FSU in 2002 was in a BCS bowl and may not have been in the top 15 of the BCS standings).

Now with the league raiding, that's all changed...maybe we'll eventually get to a playoff.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well two teams getting hosed are UGA and Auburn. Both teams have played incredibly hard scheduals, stronger than ND's strength of schedual by far. Auburn took out 3 top 10 teams and is stuck at BCS spot 10. UGA which has played 4 top 10 teams, an 9 top 20 teams this year is stuck at 15 BCS wise. Even if we beat LSU in the SEC Championship, meaning 5 top ten teams played, 10 top twenty teams this year we wont even get back into the top 10.

Something is seriously wrong when a team like UGA loses two games, by 1 point margin in one case, last minute freak tuchdown in another, and is going to play for the conference championship. Yet a team which played a total of two teams that were ranked when they played them, neither of which were ranked in the top ten by either coaches poll or bcs rank, somehow gets a lock on the national championship simply because they beat up on a conference of patsy teams.

Makes no sense. Its high time for a playoff. Let the bowls go back to being popularity contests and rewards for haveing decent seasons. But have a playoff to determine who really is the best. Auburn would decimate USC. So would Penn State or ND. Yet none of them will have the shot Texas has. BCS blows hard and as the weeks wind down, it becomes more and more obvious that USC became champ by the third week of this years BCS rankings.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
Uh, Red...the "SEC RULES" thread is two doors down.

Seriously, the SEC has the most passionate fans, but that doesn't automatically make the SEC the toughest conference. And definitely not this year. (Preseason rankings are crap, so why bother counting them.)

If you look at UGA, they played some serious cupcakes...Boise, Lousiana Monroe, MSU, Kentucky, Vandy, even Tennesse and Arkansas this year are weak. (Remember that USC hung 70 on Arkansas this year!) And they lost to their two decent opponents...FLA and Auburn...

Same with Auburn. They lost to their ranked opponents in GT and LSU, and played MSU, Balls State, Western Kentucky, Kentucky, etc....not exactly murderer's row...I mean c'mon..Ball State?

Everyone said the same thing last year about how soft the Pac-10 was, and how undeserving USC was. And they went out and humiliated an unbeaten Oklahoma team...55-19.

ND gets the nod 'cause their ND. But teams like Oregon and OSU just played tougher schedules.

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sky

Boise was a top 20 team when we played em, Luisiana Monroe ok is SunBelt conference team. When we played Vandy, they were just a game away from being bowl eligible. When we played Tennessee they were #6, When we played Florida they were #8.

At anyrate enough more knowledgeable people have noted that UGA and Auburn are getting the shaft. For example ESPN networks and Sporting News. For example LSU is now #3 in the BCS.. we beat them and we still only go to the Sugar Bowl in Atlanta .... some reward. USC plays zero top 10 teams, two top tenty teams. Guess we needed to play those four unranked teams to make up for the fact that the rest of our opponents were top 25 Teams. Of course USC playing 10 unranked teams is an amazingly harder schedual than the average SEC confernece schedual.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Red --

Sure, there were a few decent teams in the SEC this year...but I wouldn't put Vandy and Tenn up in those ranks. Sure, Tenn may have been #6 but given how they played this year, they really never should have been in the top 25....that's the pull the preseason polls have....Florida's #8 was probably a gift as well...but at least they've managed to win a few games.

Boise is a decent club -- had a chance to be a good BCS buster this year (why ND didn't at least talk to the guy coaching there I'm not sure). A SunBelt conference team? I don't care if you play the best one in the league, they're still horrible.

***
On a side note, strength of schedule is about impossible to really peg. Oregon and OSU might have played harder schedules this year, but since schedules are set so far in advance (for the most part) who knows how they'll end up in any given year. For example, ND's first eight games were @Pitt, @Mich, v. Mich State, @Wash, @Purdue, v USC, v. BYU, v. Tenn. How many other schools in the country would even consider a row of games like that? (I'll grant our last three were a bit weaker with Navy, Cuse and Stanford)....going into the season, this schedule looked like one with 7-8 bowl teams (3 in last years BCS games)......anyway, enough rambling here...I forget what I was trying to get at....

Edit: oh yeah, I remember now (even if it's not related) preseason polls should go away.

[ November 29, 2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: IrishTD ]

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that the BCS sucks. No argument there.

But, you're counting preseason rankings, or at least early season rankings, and they don't mean anything. Tennessee was a top-5 team preseason, but a win against them doesn't mean a whole lot now. And at the same time, you're not counting USCs ranked opponents who are now no longer ranked...like ASU and Cal.

To compare apples to apples, then USC would have played 6 ranked teams counting UCLA this week, and will have beaten 2 top-10 teams..ND and Oregon, both on the road.

The stat that keeps sticking out...

UGA vs. Arkansas 20-23
Auburn vs. Arkansas 34-17
USC vs. Arkansas 70-17

UGA has two losses...and can still play in a BCS game, and get a HUGE payday. Auburn and LSU would be dying to trade places...

Of course, I don't think they'll get past LSU...good luck this weekend.

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Well, LSU got dropped, and VT looks like they are about to get dropped... but texas and USC looked downright dominant in their games, and they don't have losses.

As much as the BCS sucks, the correct teams are playing each other this year.

PSU will finish number three, OSU number four.

Probably about right.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm.....as much as I hate the BCS, this year it's going to serve up a game that will probably be even better than last year.

A few years ago, USC would be playing Penn State in the Rose Bowl and we'd all wait for the polls to come out and declare a winnner.

Do we still need a playoff? I think Oregon and even Georgia would say "hell yeah."

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If every other division of football can have a playoff, then the big boys can as well....12 games plus a conf title game and a bowl game, yeah, they can fit it in...
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I think there are 5-8 teams out there that could challenge texas and usc in a tournament, but as long as we don't, at least this year the right two teams are playing each other.

Which is the first time THATS happened in the BCS.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Miami - Ohio State 3 years ago wasn't the right teams?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
Miami-Ohio worked out. But it's no guarantee.

Last year Auburn got left out.

And wasn't it in 2002 where Nebraska got crushed in their conference championship game and still got to play Miami, while Oregon got passed over?

I can't wait to see USC vs. Texas...but I think it's kind of sick that a 4 loss FSU is playing in a big bowl. If it was a team like Maryland or Virgina, people would be upset....I guess FSUs TV ratings give them a free pass...

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, what might be funny about FSU getting into the BCS is that it may screw over the ACC and their automatic bid...recall that the BCS says the conference(s) can keep an auto bid if the 4-year average of the BCS bid team is better than 12. The conference realignments started a new clock with last year's bids and the ACC had a #8 team last year and a #22 this year...that's 30 of the available 48 (12 x 4)...that means if the next two ACC champs don't average a BCS ranking of 9, the ACC *could* lose it's auto bid. And the Big East would probably manage to keep its auto bid. Now that would funny.

(Aside: auto bid info from a column I read recently...I want to say Ivan Maisel on espn.com)

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
graywolfe
Member
Member # 739

 - posted      Profile for graywolfe   Email graywolfe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Skycountry:
Not again.

Looks like Oregon is going to get hosed by the BCS once again.

Two at-large berths available, with Notre Dame, Ohio State and Oregon all trying to squeeze in. ND is an automatic, but Ohio State over Oregon?

OSU has two losses, against ranked teams, and have beaten one ranked team. Oregon has one loss against a ranked team and has beaten one ranked team.

OSU's opponents have 48 losses. Oregon's opponents have 53.

The clincher I guess is Oregon playing Montana. Still Montana is a two-time Div 1AA champ, and could probably compare favorably to 2-9 Illinois.

I'm sure OSU will get the nod, but it seems fairly suspect for a two-loss team to get chosen ahead of Oregon, especially when Oregon is ahead of OSU in the BCS ranking.

Well, us Pac-10 supporters should be used to it. Oregon State got hosed in '00, Oregon in '01, USC in '03, Cal in '04 and Oregon again in '05. No conference has been consistently screwed like the Pac-10.

As for SEC issues, considering the media bias, and back room pays off the good ol boy network down south, and the way SEC teams are annually overrated every August int he polls to begin with, the rankings themselves are utter horse manure and totally unreliable. Just take a look back to November '04, when Cal was dropped from 3rd and 4th, to below 8th by a boatload of AP writers and coaches in the coaches poll from the Big-12 conference before the final BCS ratings were calculated. The system is rigged to pay off the wealthy conferences, and teams, and screw the lil guy and moderate sized guy. Always has been. Quite depressing. USC wouldn't even have sniffed the title games they were in if it weren't for the fact that they absolutely killed virtually every non-Pac-10 team they've played over the past three years (the teams they didnt roll, they beat by a solid margin). It's more than a lil aggravating that the Pac-10 continues to not be able to sniff a break from the corrupt and incompetant voters.

[ December 08, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: graywolfe ]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For the BCS conferences

Conference | Teams in AP top 25 | Avg # of games vs. other BCS schools (and ND)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACC | 5 | 1.33
Big East | 2 | 1.875
Big Ten | 5 | 1.18
Big 12 | 2 | .583
SEC | 6 | .833
Pac-10 | 3 | 1
-----------------------------

Yeah, I'd say some of the SEC hype is definitely a bunch of crud -- they don't play much of anyone. And the Big 12 has taken Scheduling 101 from Bill Snyder (that's as weak as Big East basketball scheduling!). As for the Pac-10 being underrated -- go play some bigger out of conference games...not just ND (3 of 10)...and kickoff earlier....Oregon didn't play any other BCS teams this year -- not good if you want a BCS bid.

(these stats brought to you by a college football addict [Razz] )

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that the SEC once again has proven to be an overrated conference. Same with the Big-12.

I'm a Pac-10 guy myself, so I'd rather have seen the Ducks play OSU, or ND.....OSU just doesn't do anything for me...

Props to the Irish for their record and playing an incredible schedule.

Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Skycountry
Member
Member # 2526

 - posted      Profile for Skycountry         Edit/Delete Post 
Does anyone watch world cup soccer?
Posts: 36 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1