PDA

View Full Version : BCS Race



Pages : [1] 2 3

paintmered
11-06-2006, 12:05 AM
Okay college football fans. Here's the latest BCS scenario.

OSU and Michigan stay at #1 and #2. Louisville moves up to #3. The rest of the standings are in the table.



TEAM H. RK PTS % USA RK PTS % A&H RB CM KM JS PW % COMP AVG BCS AVG PRVS
1 Ohio State 1 2849 .999 1 1575 1.000 24 25 24 24 24 24 .960 2 .9865 1
2 Michigan 2 2731 .958 2 1502 .954 25 24 25 25 25 25 1.000 1 .9706 2
3 Louisville 3 2521 .885 4 1382 .878 23 22 23 23 22 23 .910 3 .8907 5
4 Florida 6 2275 .798 6 1255 .797 22 18 21 21 18 21 .810 5 .8017 4
5 Texas 4 2515 .883 3 1397 .887 16 23 16 11 13 18 .630 10 .7998 7
6 Auburn 5 2317 .813 5 1309 .831 17 16 17 20 19 17 .700 8 .7814 6
7 USC 7 2097 .736 7 1148 .729 20 19 18 18 20 20 .770 7 .7449 8
8 California 9 1948 .684 9 1048 .665 21 21 22 22 21 19 .850 4 .7330 10
9 Notre Dame 8 1994 .700 8 1079 .685 18 20 20 19 23 22 .810 6 .7316 9
10 West Virginia 10 1743 .612 10 994 .631 13 14 13 10 10 12 .480 14 .5742 3



1) If Lousiville remains unbeaten and Michigan loses to OSU, who should be the two teams in the BCS championship?

2) If Lousivlle remains unbeaten and OSU loses to Michigan, who should be the two teams in the BCS Championship? Does OSU hold onto the #2 spot over Lousivlle with one loss?

3) If Louisville loses (they still play @ undefeated Rutgers), is Florida or even Texas all of a sudden in the BCS Championship?

Gainesville Red
11-06-2006, 12:22 AM
3) If Louisville loses (they still play @ undefeated Rutgers), is Florida all of a sudden in the BCS Championship?

I'm not sure. It's a shame that FSU turned out so bad this year. Normally that's a nice strength of schedule boost at the end of the year. Alabama and Georgia losing again this weekend doesn't help either.

Actually, if Georgia lost to Kentucky, and Florida beat both of them, does that even matter? Sort of cancel eachother out or something?

Winning the SEC championship game would help out, but honestly, after watching the gators play all year, it may be more fun to play someone else and win, than to play Ohio State.

Florida wins, but they win ugly. I guess Ohio State won a championship playing ugly a couple years ago. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that, I think they won ugly, but obviously there's people here with more OSU knowledge than me.)

Playadlc
11-06-2006, 12:24 AM
Indiana beats Michigan next week foiling all this madness.

Gainesville Red
11-06-2006, 12:30 AM
By the way, I know it's be said over and over, but how cool would it be to have a playoff?

Farney
11-06-2006, 12:53 AM
Just think of the season as a 12-game playoff

Caveat Emperor
11-06-2006, 01:27 AM
1) If Lousiville remains unbeaten and Michigan loses to OSU, who should be the two teams in the BCS championship?

2) If Lousivlle remains unbeaten and OSU loses to Michigan, who should be the two teams in the BCS Championship? Does OSU hold onto the #2 spot over Lousivlle with one loss?

3) If Louisville loses (they still play @ undefeated Rutgers), is Florida or even Texas all of a sudden in the BCS Championship?

1.) Louisville-OSU should play for the national title. Michigan should get no rematch -- it had its chance to win the national title. Why should it get a second bite at the apple while Texas (for example) doesn't?

2.) Louisville-Michigan -- same reasoning as above.

3.) If Rutgers beats Louisville and is the only unbeaten team in D1 other than the winner of OSU/Mich, then Rutgers should play for the national title.

If you go undefeated in a BCS conference, you should earn the right to play for the BCS championship -- especially if there are no other unbeatens. Otherwise, what is the point of seperating the conferences into BCS/non-BCS? Denying Rutgers a shot at the national title would prove the BCS is a fraud and exists only to perpetuate the status quo and thumb its nose at any accomplishments that don't come from traditional powerhouse programs.

Is Rugers the best or second-best team in the country? No, but this is the bed the BCS has made -- it should be forced to sleep in it when and if the time comes.

Danny Serafini
11-06-2006, 09:32 AM
The whole point of the BCS system in to ensure the top two teams in the country play for the title. If Rutgers isn't one of the two best teams in the country (and clearly they're not) then there's no reason for them to be in the title game.

I don't worry about the whole rematch aspect. There have been rematches in the title game before, just not last week rematches like Ohio State/Michigan would be. The whole point is to get #1 vs. #2. If they're two schools that have played before so be it. If it's a school that's lost a game so be it. If it's a school from a weaker conference so be it. All that matters is that #1 plays #2.

NJReds
11-06-2006, 09:45 AM
The whole point of the BCS system in to ensure the top two teams in the country play for the title. If Rutgers isn't one of the two best teams in the country (and clearly they're not) then there's no reason for them to be in the title game.

Louisville played and destroyed then #17 Miami. Other than that, the schedules of Rutgers-Louisville-West Virginia are littered with tomato cans. (Except that they all play each other and a Pitt team that rises above 'tomato can' status). I think Louisville is best of the bunch, and should beat Rutgers...but if Rutgers wins out, the only reason that they won't be in the hunt for the BCS championship is that they didn't start the season with the same level of respect from the pollsters.

oneupper
11-06-2006, 10:00 AM
Nebraska made its way to countless national championship games by beating up on a weak conference (Big 12 or whatever it was called before).

No difference in what Louisville would be doing now.

None of this will change until there's a playoff system.

paintmered
11-06-2006, 11:35 AM
Louisville played and destroyed then #17 Miami. Other than that, the schedules of Rutgers-Louisville-West Virginia are littered with tomato cans. (Except that they all play each other and a Pitt team that rises above 'tomato can' status). I think Louisville is best of the bunch, and should beat Rutgers...but if Rutgers wins out, the only reason that they won't be in the hunt for the BCS championship is that they didn't start the season with the same level of respect from the pollsters.

The same thing could be argued about the Big 11 this year. There's OSU and Michigan of course. Wisconsin is ranked 16th this week. But that's it.

Sounds awfully like another conference that likes to get ripped on for being weak.

OldRightHander
11-06-2006, 06:38 PM
Just think of the season as a 12-game playoff

There's a lot of truth to that, a one and out playoff for the most part, depending on the conference you play in. Don't get me wrong. I'm a Buckeye fan through and through and I thoroughly enjoy seeing them at the top of the heap, but every year you see an undefeated team from one of the so called weaker conferences that gets overlooked, or several one loss teams that could all have a legitimate shot and winning the championship game but don't get the chance.

There would be a few problems with the playoff system as well, but I think it should be considered. How you pick the teams for the playoff would still create controversy, simply because there are always folks who want to stir it up no matter what. If you pick the top 8 teams for a playoff, the fans of school X that didn't make the cut but had as good a record as the 8th team picked will gripe. Someone is always going to feel left out.

Yes, for the most part I think the current system is unfair in that there are always deserving teams that don't even get a chance, but for the most part you do end up with two pretty darn good teams playing for all the marbles at the end.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 06:52 PM
3.) If Rutgers beats Louisville and is the only unbeaten team in D1 other than the winner of OSU/Mich, then Rutgers should play for the national title.

If you go undefeated in a BCS conference, you should earn the right to play for the BCS championship -- especially if there are no other unbeatens. Otherwise, what is the point of seperating the conferences into BCS/non-BCS? Denying Rutgers a shot at the national title would prove the BCS is a fraud and exists only to perpetuate the status quo and thumb its nose at any accomplishments that don't come from traditional powerhouse programs.

Is Rugers the best or second-best team in the country? No, but this is the bed the BCS has made -- it should be forced to sleep in it when and if the time comes.

I absolutely couldn't agree more. Ever since the day it was created, I've felt the BCS was the most ridiculous, senseless creation in the history of major sport--worse, even, than the glowing puck.

It's one thing when a team from a non-BCS conference runs the table and gets ignored (Utah, Tulane). But if a team from a BCS conference can go undefeated (say, Rutgers) and STILL not have a chance to play for the Title, then why even have a Division 1-A? Just carve out 15-20 teams from across the country who are usually in the top 25, and place them in a single conference whereby the winner is crowned National Champion. Let the other schmucks play out their schedules for the right to play in the Rice Krispies Bowl, or whatever, pat 'em on the back and congratulate them on a good season, then ask them to kindly step aside.

The BCS is the perfect combination of greed, idiocy and incompetence.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 06:56 PM
The whole point of the BCS system in to ensure the top two teams in the country play for the title. If Rutgers isn't one of the two best teams in the country (and clearly they're not) then there's no reason for them to be in the title game.

That blows the whole logic of the BCS out of the water, then. Rutgers plays in a conference that is, by definition, one of the top conferences in the country. It says so right in the BCS contract. What you're suggesting is for the BCS to simply ignore their own guidelines, and is no better than simply picking two teams out of thin air to play for this mythical Championship.

And when you have more than two teams from top conferences finish the season undefeated, you're left with using a series of complex and convoluted computer programs to determine your "National Champion" for you. How lovely.

Cedric
11-06-2006, 08:19 PM
I would be in tears of CFB went to a playoff.

CFB is the most unique sport out there because every Saturday is the super bowl in many ways. Imagine if Michigan vs Ohio State this year was just a game for seeding?

It's a game of tradition and it needs to stay that way, IMO.

Cedric
11-06-2006, 08:21 PM
That blows the whole logic of the BCS out of the water, then. Rutgers plays in a conference that is, by definition, one of the top conferences in the country. It says so right in the BCS contract. What you're suggesting is for the BCS to simply ignore their own guidelines, and is no better than simply picking two teams out of thin air to play for this mythical Championship.

And when you have more than two teams from top conferences finish the season undefeated, you're left with using a series of complex and convoluted computer programs to determine your "National Champion" for you. How lovely.

I agree, the BCS is just dumb. I would be 100% fine with going back to human polls. Would anyone really have an arguement for Rutgers going over a one loss Michigan, Texas, Florida team? Common sense has to come into play somewhere.

And if those other teams have already lost they have no room to complain. They left it up to the pollsters and that's just fine with me. The logistics and other factors make playoffs just the same kind of bs to me. Humans would still have to setup the matchups and the last thing we need is something like a 2 loss LSU team backing into a title because of matchups or injuries in week 18.

cincy jacket
11-06-2006, 08:29 PM
There are only 3 teams with legitimate gripes if left out of the BCS title game. They would be an undefeated UL (or undefeated rutgers if they beat them). A one loss Michigan, if a one loss Notre Dame got in over them. Or a one loss OSU if Texas got in over them. Everyone knows going in what the system is. If you win all your games and your in a power conference, most times you will get in the title game (sorry 2004 Auburn). If you don't, then its up to a bunch of journalists and coaches with their own agendas to decide your fate. Fair? Not really ,but neither is the fact that Boise State could win all their games from here til 2020 and never get close to the title game under this format. With all that bein said I personally think this is much more exciting than a play-off. It can keep us talking for months about how we would of won the titles if it wasn't for the computers.

Caveat Emperor
11-06-2006, 09:31 PM
The whole point of the BCS system in to ensure the top two teams in the country play for the title. If Rutgers isn't one of the two best teams in the country (and clearly they're not) then there's no reason for them to be in the title game.

I don't worry about the whole rematch aspect. There have been rematches in the title game before, just not last week rematches like Ohio State/Michigan would be. The whole point is to get #1 vs. #2. If they're two schools that have played before so be it. If it's a school that's lost a game so be it. If it's a school from a weaker conference so be it. All that matters is that #1 plays #2.

Then why even look at the records, strength-of-schedule, opponents, etc.? If the only thing you're concerned about is getting the matchup of the two best teams, then just get everyone to figure out who the most talented teams are and match them up at the end of the year. So what if they have 1 loss or 2 losses.

At that point, it becomes a fantasy-football exercise and has nothing to do with determining who has had the best year on the football field.


There are only 3 teams with legitimate gripes if left out of the BCS title game. They would be an undefeated UL (or undefeated rutgers if they beat them). A one loss Michigan, if a one loss Notre Dame got in over them. Or a one loss OSU if Texas got in over them. Everyone knows going in what the system is. If you win all your games and your in a power conference, most times you will get in the title game (sorry 2004 Auburn). If you don't, then its up to a bunch of journalists and coaches with their own agendas to decide your fate. Fair? Not really ,but neither is the fact that Boise State could win all their games from here til 2020 and never get close to the title game under this format. With all that bein said I personally think this is much more exciting than a play-off. It can keep us talking for months about how we would of won the titles if it wasn't for the computers.

Why should OSU or Michigan have a gripe about being left out of the title game? Each team controls it's own destiny. We're not talking about an Auburn situation, where they did everything asked of them and still got left out of the dance -- each team (OSU and Michigan) has a chance to be the national champion if they win the games in front of them. If the loesr of their game doesn't make the national championship, they have nobody to blame but themselves for not winning and advancing to play for the title.

I've got zero sympathy for the loser of that game. If those kids want the glory, they can go earn it on the football field. The loser shouldn't get a second bite that is denied to other schools.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 08:29 AM
I would be in tears of CFB went to a playoff.

CFB is the most unique sport out there because every Saturday is the super bowl in many ways. Imagine if Michigan vs Ohio State this year was just a game for seeding?

It's a game of tradition and it needs to stay that way, IMO.

Ah, the good old "tradition" argument. You are aware of how the polls first came to be, right? They were never meant to be taken seriously. The AP poll started in 1934 as a way to encourage debate among football fans, since college football didn't have any way of determining its champion. Fans, however, began viewing the team at the top of the AP poll at the end of the season as the "champion," and that perception carried on through until the creation of the idiotic BCS.

But, yes, any system that can deliver "split championships," unnecessary controversy and effectively shuts out half of Division 1-A teams from championship contention is certainly better than a playoff system. It makes you wonder why Division 1-A football is the only sport in the world that determines its champion in such a manner... :confused:

Chip R
11-07-2006, 08:54 AM
I would be in tears of CFB went to a playoff.


But it already does have playoffs. Divisions 1-AA, II and III have had playoffs for years and the sun still comes up in the east.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 09:17 AM
IIRC, the main argument against a playoff system is the additional games that would be played.

Which conveniently ignores the fact a playoff system could be fit into the existing bowl games.

Which also conveniently ignores the fact there is a new "Super Bowl" BCS championship game this year.

And also ignores the fact that college football is played on every day of the week now, i.e. college presidents have *****d themselves to get on TV. Well, maybe not Monday, but every other week.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 09:21 AM
IMO, if Michigan loses, they won't play in the championship game.

If OSU loses, I could conceive of a rematch. Particularly if both Louisville and Rutgers lose.

I think it would be a hoot if Rutgers went undefeated. The contortions that BCS would go through to screw them out of a title slot would be monumental.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 09:23 AM
IIRC, the main argument against a playoff system is the additional games that would be played.

Which conveniently ignores the fact a playoff system could be fit into the existing bowl games.

Which also conveniently ignores the fact there is a new "Super Bowl" BCS championship game this year.

And also ignores the fact that college football is played on every day of the week now, i.e. college presidents have *****d themselves to get on TV. Well, maybe not Monday, but every other week.

It also ignores the fact that, as Chip states, every other division in football has a playoff system.

A playoff would add more games? Cry me a river. It's borderline preposterous to me that an organization that operates as a professional sports league suddenly becomes watchful over the well-being of its so-called "student athletes" when the talk shifts to a discussion of a playoff system that would disrupt the flow of cash generated by the bowl system.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 09:26 AM
I think it would be a hoot if Rutgers went undefeated. The contortions that BCS would go through to screw them out of a title slot would be monumental.

Yeah, just ask USC, circa 2003.

Danny Serafini
11-07-2006, 09:47 AM
That blows the whole logic of the BCS out of the water, then. Rutgers plays in a conference that is, by definition, one of the top conferences in the country. It says so right in the BCS contract. What you're suggesting is for the BCS to simply ignore their own guidelines, and is no better than simply picking two teams out of thin air to play for this mythical Championship.

And when you have more than two teams from top conferences finish the season undefeated, you're left with using a series of complex and convoluted computer programs to determine your "National Champion" for you. How lovely.

No one, including those in the BCS, has ever said all BCS conferences are equal. Going undefeated in the Big East doesn't carry the same weight as going undefeated in the Big 10, because the Big East simply isn't as good. And let's take a look at who Rutgers has beaten on their way to 8-0:

North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Howard
South Florida
Navy
Pittsburgh
Connecticut

Combine both the AP and coach's polls, and those eight schools combined for one single vote. At this point, Rutgers has done nothing to earn a shot in the title game. If they do run the table they'll have wins over Louisville and West Virginia to help their case, but even then they're unlikely. Would they really deserve to go over a Florida team that had wins over Tennessee, LSU and Arkansas in the SEC title game? Would they deserve to go over a USC team that had wins over Arkansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Cal and Notre Dame? Even with a loss you can't make a case for Rutgers going ahead of those schools.

Rutgers is a wonderful story this year, and a pretty good team. But they're not title game worthy, and you don't need a computer to tell you that. Does anyone really think the voters would put Rutgers at #2?

westofyou
11-07-2006, 10:27 AM
CFB is the most unique sport out there because every Saturday is the super bowl in many ways. Imagine if Michigan vs Ohio State this year was just a game for seeding?

Imagine them both ending up undefeated and one staying home.

Oh wait... that already happened.

It's been way worse before.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 10:40 AM
No one, including those in the BCS, has ever said all BCS conferences are equal.

Actually, the BCS does. By naming 6 conferences as "BCS Conferences", the BCS has effectively stated that these conferences rise above the other "second-tier" conferences in Division 1-A, and that the champions from each of these conferences have--by virtue of playing in a BCS conference--earned the right to participate in the BCS and lay claim to being a better team. The BCS itself has stated--by virtue of the creation of this asinine system--that the teams that play in conferences such as the Big East are inherently better than teams in, say, the MAC.

If the argument is that some schools from these inherently superior conferences truly *aren't* superior--that they could, in fact, go undefeated and become the champions of their conference, and still have no realistic shot at a National Championship--then this whole BCS thing is a complete and total sham (which, by the way, it is.) Just call the BCS what it truly is--a way for the top 20 or 30 programs in the country to rake in the dollars, while leaving the "also-rans" behind.

You're saying Rutgers hasn;t played anybody--fine. But who's to say that the competition USC is blowing through out west is significantly better?


Going undefeated in the Big East doesn't carry the same weight as going undefeated in the Big 10, because the Big East simply isn't as good.

...

Rutgers is a wonderful story this year, and a pretty good team. But they're not title game worthy, and you don't need a computer to tell you that. Does anyone really think the voters would put Rutgers at #2?

That's the whole point here, though. I don't really know how good Rutgers is. So I have to resort to a complex and impossible-to-explain computer program to run some algorithms and spit out to me some random number like "8.975" that is supposed to give me an indication of how good Rutgers is?

The argument I'm making isnt necessarily that Rutgers is a championship caliber team--I, personally, don't think that they are. It's that using this idiotic subjective and arbitrary criteria as a means to determine your champion is flawed. If every other collegiate sport can determine their champion without the aid of algorithms and computer models, I fail to understand what sets Division 1-A football apart.

NJReds
11-07-2006, 10:52 AM
No one, including those in the BCS, has ever said all BCS conferences are equal. Going undefeated in the Big East doesn't carry the same weight as going undefeated in the Big 10, because the Big East simply isn't as good. And let's take a look at who Rutgers has beaten on their way to 8-0:

North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Howard
South Florida
Navy
Pittsburgh
Connecticut


Disclaimer: I don't like the BCS, and I'd much rather see a playoff.

However, with all due respect...look at Louisville's schedule:

Kentucky
Temple
Miami (FL)
Kansas State
Middle Tennessee
Cincinnati
Syracuse
West Virginia

Up until West Virginia (who Rutgers will also get a shot at), their best win was a victory over a sub-par Miami squad.

West Virginia...who was #3 until their loss to Louisville built up their ranking by beating the following:

Marshall
Eastern Washington
Maryland
East Carolina
Mississippi State
Syracuse
Connecticut

If Rutgers beats Louisville and WV, they deserve the same treatment from the pollsters that those two teams would've received, IMO.

I'm not saying Rutgers is the second best team at that point, but under this system they deserve the same respect as WV or Louisville, which most likely would've been a shot at the Ohio St.-Michigan winner.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 10:58 AM
If every other collegiate sport can determine their champion without the aid of algorithms and computer models, I fail to understand what sets Division 1-A football apart.

To paraphrase, it's always been about the money.

Danny Serafini
11-07-2006, 11:13 AM
Actually, the BCS does. By naming 6 conferences as "BCS Conferences", the BCS has effectively stated that these conferences rise above the other "second-tier" conferences in Division 1-A, and that the champions from each of these conferences have--by virtue of playing in a BCS conference--earned the right to participate in the BCS and lay claim to being a better team. The BCS itself has stated--by virtue of the creation of this asinine system--that the teams that play in conferences such as the Big East are inherently better than teams in, say, the MAC.

They do say the BCS conferences are superior to the others. And honestly they are. But they don't say all BCS conferences are equal. The Big East got put on probation a year or two ago because their performance was considered subpar. As poorly as the ACC has performed this year they may suffer the same fate. That's the BCS saying "You're not as good as other BCS conferences."


Just call the BCS what it truly is--a way for the top 20 or 30 programs in the country to rake in the dollars, while leaving the "also-rans" behind.

Well, yeah. No argument here.


You're saying Rutgers hasn;t played anybody--fine. But who's to say that the competition USC is blowing through out west is significantly better?

Pretty much everyone. USC has played a much better schedule. They've already beaten three teams that have been in the rankings (Arkansas, Nebraska, Washington St.) and have three more to go. They really do have a strong schedule this year.


That's the whole point here, though. I don't really know how good Rutgers is. So I have to resort to a complex and impossible-to-explain computer program to run some algorithms and spit out to me some random number like "8.975" that is supposed to give me an indication of how good Rutgers is?

The argument I'm making isnt necessarily that Rutgers is a championship caliber team--I, personally, don't think that they are. It's that using this idiotic subjective and arbitrary criteria as a means to determine your champion is flawed. If every other collegiate sport can determine their champion without the aid of algorithms and computer models, I fail to understand what sets Division 1-A football apart.

I'm not going to argue that the BCS is better than a playoff, because it isn't. A playoff would be a much better system for everyone involved. But if my choice is the old poll system or the BCS, I'll take the BCS. It's a least a small step in the right direction.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 11:32 AM
Ah, the good old "tradition" argument. You are aware of how the polls first came to be, right? They were never meant to be taken seriously. The AP poll started in 1934 as a way to encourage debate among football fans, since college football didn't have any way of determining its champion. Fans, however, began viewing the team at the top of the AP poll at the end of the season as the "champion," and that perception carried on through until the creation of the idiotic BCS.

But, yes, any system that can deliver "split championships," unnecessary controversy and effectively shuts out half of Division 1-A teams from championship contention is certainly better than a playoff system. It makes you wonder why Division 1-A football is the only sport in the world that determines its champion in such a manner... :confused:

I'm sure a playoff would end that "unnecessary controversy? Get real.

All that would do is force people to complain about the seedings and the matchups. The arguement I hear for a playoff is that it will "prove" the best team won the title. Please tell me you don't agree with that line of reasoning?

The regular season is the playoffs in CFB and that's the way it should be. Every other sport has it wrong. If other sports were so worried about proving the best team they would do away with long crapshoot playoffs and rely on the long regular seasons, just like MLB used to. The only reason they don't is because of money and allowing the teams in other cities to actually believe they have a shot.

I'd argue that the best team in CFB wins the title much more than the best in other sports.

I also understand that sports are a business. I understand why MLB needs wild cards and such to keep fans in play, but arguing that it somehow helps prove the best team is just inane to me. People want a playoff in CFB to prove the best team and it just wouldn't do it.



Why should half of those 1-A teams deserve a shot at the title anyway? There has to be common sense in play here.

Danny Serafini
11-07-2006, 11:58 AM
I'm sure a playoff would end that "unnecessary controversy? Get real.

All that would do is force people to complain about the seedings and the matchups.

You can play your way out of a bad seed. But you can't play your way in without a playoff.


If other sports were so worried about proving the best team they would do away with long crapshoot playoffs and rely on the long regular seasons, just like MLB used to.

I look at playoffs as a necessary evil. If you could play a true round robin schedule it would give you a fair result and standing of who's the best. With 120 or so teams however it's impossible. You can't simply look at two teams and say this team is better because it has a better record when the two have played vastly different schedules. The only way to determine who's better is to play it out on the field. And yes, sometimes the best team doesn't win the title, upsets happen. But polls are just guesswork as much as anything, so I'd take a result obtained on the field over one voted on by a writer or some coach's assistant.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 12:13 PM
You can play your way out of a bad seed. But you can't play your way in without a playoff.



I look at playoffs as a necessary evil. If you could play a true round robin schedule it would give you a fair result and standing of who's the best. With 120 or so teams however it's impossible. You can't simply look at two teams and say this team is better because it has a better record when the two have played vastly different schedules. The only way to determine who's better is to play it out on the field. And yes, sometimes the best team doesn't win the title, upsets happen. But polls are just guesswork as much as anything, so I'd take a result obtained on the field over one voted on by a writer or some coach's assistant.

The best way is what we got now, IMO. No matter what there would be controversy. I understand the other side, I just think the tradition and other factors I'm saying are usually not respected.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 12:14 PM
You can play your way out of a bad seed. But you can't play your way in without a playoff.



I look at playoffs as a necessary evil. If you could play a true round robin schedule it would give you a fair result and standing of who's the best. With 120 or so teams however it's impossible. You can't simply look at two teams and say this team is better because it has a better record when the two have played vastly different schedules. The only way to determine who's better is to play it out on the field. And yes, sometimes the best team doesn't win the title, upsets happen. But polls are just guesswork as much as anything, so I'd take a result obtained on the field over one voted on by a writer or some coach's assistant.

Again though, who doesn't want it solved on the field? The problem is the logistics and if that would even solve it. Would a 8 team playoff really represent the best right now? Notre Dame with one loss would be out and you can bet your life there would be immense whining and debate.
Who would choose the 8? Another BCS?
With 108 teams and a million conferences there just isn't anything to do but allow the polls to pick the two best teams to play.

Danny Serafini
11-07-2006, 12:36 PM
There will always be complaints by those left out, but the #3 team would have a much more valid complaint than the #9, who would have a much more valid complaint than the #17. The further down the line the harder it is to feel sorry for a team that gets left behind.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 12:40 PM
I'd like it to be about tradition too but that horse left the barn a long time ago. I thought this was interesting reading... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_on_television

I'd be OK with a 16 team playoff with a BCS-like choosing and seeding of the teams. The BCS system does a pretty decent job overall of blending the human and computer polls. But when you have to pick only 2 teams, it usually ends up leaving out very deserving teams.

There will always be controversy about seedings and who goes/stays, but a 16 team net sure is a lot better than a 2 team net.

Spring~Fields
11-07-2006, 01:00 PM
BCS championship game is irrelevant this year.

A.) The number one and number two teams are scheduled to meet and to play on Nov 18.

B.)The very last game of the season.

C.) It would be a joke for number one after that game to have to play one more for a championship.

D.) Ohio State already beat Texas the number 3 and 4 team depending on the poll.

E.) Losing to the number one or number two team in the nation is nothing shameful and neither team that loses should be dropped below number two. Losing to either the number one or number two team in the nation does not automatically make the lower ranked teams somehow all of a sudden better.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 02:02 PM
I'm not going to argue that the BCS is better than a playoff, because it isn't. A playoff would be a much better system for everyone involved. But if my choice is the old poll system or the BCS, I'll take the BCS. It's a least a small step in the right direction.

I would agree with this statement, but it's akin to asking if you want to be poked in the eye or stomped on the foot. Both options suck royally.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 02:21 PM
I'm sure a playoff would end that "unnecessary controversy? Get real.

You think this convoluted mess of computer programs, algorithms, strength of schedule ratings and other such gobbledy gook is better than a playoff? Get real.


All that would do is force people to complain about the seedings and the matchups. The arguement I hear for a playoff is that it will "prove" the best team won the title. Please tell me you don't agree with that line of reasoning?

You can argue about seedings all you want--or whether the 9th team (or 17th team, depending on the size of the tournament) deserved to get in--but it would still be an infinitely better system than the mess we have now. Would a playoff system "prove" who the best team is? No--there's no way to "prove" such a thing; it doesn't exist. But within the realm of the possible, I will far and away take the system that provides deserving teams an opportunity at the Championship--or at the very least an opportunity to prove how good they are--than one that essentially pre-selects who will be playing for the mythical championship from a pool of 30 or so teams.


The regular season is the playoffs in CFB and that's the way it should be. Every other sport has it wrong. If other sports were so worried about proving the best team they would do away with long crapshoot playoffs and rely on the long regular seasons, just like MLB used to. The only reason they don't is because of money and allowing the teams in other cities to actually believe they have a shot.

Well, this is a new line of thinking. The only reason Division III baseball has a playoff system is for the money? The NCAA is really concerned about giving fans in Carbondale, IL a belief that they have a shot at something? Every other organized sport at every level--high school, college, professional--gets it wrong, and should instead adopt a champion-determining system that utilizes a bizarre amalgamation of media polls, schedule ratings, arbitrary preseason rankings and undecipherable computer programs? Do you even believe what you're typing here?

The Bowl system is a tremendous cash cow for the NCAA--it's the only reason it still exists. If the bowls didn't make money, and didn't kick millions of dollars back towards schools and the NCAA itself, the NCAA powers-that-be would develop an alternative system right quick. You're deluding yourself if you think the NCAA decision makers give one hoot about "tradition" or the way "things should be."


I'd argue that the best team in CFB wins the title much more than the best in other sports.

And I'd argue a sport whose season produces two (or more) teams that can make legitimate claims to being "National Champions" is a joke.


I also understand that sports are a business. I understand why MLB needs wild cards and such to keep fans in play, but arguing that it somehow helps prove the best team is just inane to me. People want a playoff in CFB to prove the best team and it just wouldn't do it.

No, they want a playoff because it would be a substantial improvement over what is currently in place.


Why should half of those 1-A teams deserve a shot at the title anyway? There has to be common sense in play here.

I dunno...because they play in Division 1-A? Why not apply this absurd line of thinking to other sports? Let's automatically exclude the Jackets, Blackhawks, Panthers, Coyotes and Kings from consideration for the Stanley Cup before the season begins, because we just don't think they're good enough to deserve it.

We are in agreement that some common sense should be applied, but if the BCS can be described as "common sense" then it is only within the realm of some bizarro world that defies all logic or reason.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 02:23 PM
I'd like it to be about tradition too but that horse left the barn a long time ago. I thought this was interesting reading... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_on_television

"Tradition" walked out the door for me the moment games like the "Continental Tire Bowl" appeared on the scene.

Sometimes I get wistful and all teary-eyed, thinking about the proud tradition of the Outback Steakhouse Bowl. No wonder people want to keep the bowl system.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 02:46 PM
"Tradition" walked out the door for me the moment games like the "Continental Tire Bowl" appeared on the scene.

Sometimes I get wistful and all teary-eyed, thinking about the proud tradition of the Outback Steakhouse Bowl. No wonder people want to keep the bowl system.

Wacky bowls have been around for a while. Recently, I read about Xavier's win over Arizona State (!) in the 1950 Salad Bowl (Xavier has started playing football again as a club sport).

Mostly what I recall about these obscure bowls were the cheesey announcers wearing really awful blazers and bad toupees on some broadcasting network that I'd never heard of before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_bowl_games

Cedric
11-07-2006, 02:50 PM
You think this convoluted mess of computer programs, algorithms, strength of schedule ratings and other such gobbledy gook is better than a playoff? Get real.



You can argue about seedings all you want--or whether the 9th team (or 17th team, depending on the size of the tournament) deserved to get in--but it would still be an infinitely better system than the mess we have now. Would a playoff system "prove" who the best team is? No--there's no way to "prove" such a thing; it doesn't exist. But within the realm of the possible, I will far and away take the system that provides deserving teams an opportunity at the Championship--or at the very least an opportunity to prove how good they are--than one that essentially pre-selects who will be playing for the mythical championship from a pool of 30 or so teams.



Well, this is a new line of thinking. The only reason Division III baseball has a playoff system is for the money? The NCAA is really concerned about giving fans in Carbondale, IL a belief that they have a shot at something? Every other organized sport at every level--high school, college, professional--gets it wrong, and should instead adopt a champion-determining system that utilizes a bizarre amalgamation of media polls, schedule ratings, arbitrary preseason rankings and undecipherable computer programs? Do you even believe what you're typing here?

The Bowl system is a tremendous cash cow for the NCAA--it's the only reason it still exists. If the bowls didn't make money, and didn't kick millions of dollars back towards schools and the NCAA itself, the NCAA powers-that-be would develop an alternative system right quick. You're deluding yourself if you think the NCAA decision makers give one hoot about "tradition" or the way "things should be."



And I'd argue a sport whose season produces two (or more) teams that can make legitimate claims to being "National Champions" is a joke.



No, they want a playoff because it would be a substantial improvement over what is currently in place.



I dunno...because they play in Division 1-A? Why not apply this absurd line of thinking to other sports? Let's automatically exclude the Jackets, Blackhawks, Panthers, Coyotes and Kings from consideration for the Stanley Cup before the season begins, because we just don't think they're good enough to deserve it.

We are in agreement that some common sense should be applied, but if the BCS can be described as "common sense" then it is only within the realm of some bizarro world that defies all logic or reason.

Comparing 30 pro teams to 108 college teams is just not reasonable. It's not even close to a valid comparison.

And I'd appreciate if you stop with the condescending and rude talk. If you disagree with my opinion that's fine.

I believe that a cfb playoff is a logistical nightmare, I don't need to the "Do you even believe what you're typing here?" type stuff.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 02:55 PM
"Tradition" walked out the door for me the moment games like the "Continental Tire Bowl" appeared on the scene.

Sometimes I get wistful and all teary-eyed, thinking about the proud tradition of the Outback Steakhouse Bowl. No wonder people want to keep the bowl system.

Do you always disrespect others opinions like this?

You act like I'm the only person in the world that prefers the bowl system. You disagree with me, fine.

Try and show some class next time.

If you actually had some read my point of view, you would have read that I prefered that human pollsters picked the two teams to play for the Title. Instead you rail foaming at the mouth about the BCS when it's not even something I support.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 02:59 PM
Comparing 30 pro teams to 108 college teams is just not reasonable. It's not even close to a valid comparison.

You're the one who made it when you said every other sport gets it wrong. I didn't open that door.


And I'd appreciate if you stop with the condescending and rude talk. If you disagree with my opinion that's fine.

I believe that a cfb playoff is a logistical nightmare, I don't need to the "Do you even believe what you're typing here?" type stuff.

A college football playoff would be a logistical nightmare? More so than the current BCS farce?

Perhaps the people who run Division 1-A could talk with the guys down in 1-AA, 2 and 3. I'm sure they could give a few pointers on how to effectively run a playoff.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:01 PM
You're the one who made it when you said every other sport gets it wrong. I didn't open that door.



A college football playoff would be a logistical nightmare? More so than the current BCS farce?

Perhaps the people who run Division 1-A could talk with the guys down in 1-AA, 2 and 3. I'm sure they could give a few pointers on how to effectively run a playoff.

I Don't want a BCS dude. Go back and read my point of view or please stop putting words in my mouth.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:01 PM
Do you always disrespect others opinions like this?

You act like I'm the only person in the world that prefers the bowl system. You disagree with me, fine.

Do you always assume that every post has to do with you? This post was in response to Roy's comment, not anything you made.


Try and show some class next time.

Try reading the post a bit more thoroughly before you call someone out.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:02 PM
Try reading the post a bit more thoroughly before you call someone out.

Yeah, like how in my second post on the thread "I agree the BCS is dumb"

And yet on every thread after you bring up the BCS in rebuttal with my points. That's a little hypocritical.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:04 PM
I Don't want a BCS dude. Go back and read my point of view or please stop putting words in my mouth.

It'd be an improvement over that as well, I hated the days when college football determined their championship based solely upon what a bunch of sportswriters thought. It was especially wonderful when the two polls wouldn't agree and you'd get two "champions." I thought, well, there's nowhere to go but up.

Leave it to the NCAA to prove me wrong.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:05 PM
It'd be an improvement over that as well, I hated the days when college football determined their championship based solely upon what a bunch of sportswriters thought. It was especially wonderful when the two polls wouldn't agree and you'd get two "champions." I thought, well, there's nowhere to go but up.

Leave it to the NCAA to prove me wrong.

Yeah, well I'll just disregard your foaming at the mouth for the BCS when questioning my points.

Next time read better.

It took you three posts before you accurately debate what I'm saying. I wouldn't be so condescending next time when you are arguing against someone that agrees with you.

RichRed
11-07-2006, 03:08 PM
Perhaps the people who run Division 1-A could talk with the guys down in 1-AA, 2 and 3. I'm sure they could give a few pointers on how to effectively run a playoff.

I'm an alum of a school that strives to make the I-AA playoffs every year (James Madison - 2004 I-AA National Champs) and it's great. Sure it's flawed but the arguments the BCS apologists make against a playoff system are a joke, just like the BCS itself.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:10 PM
Yeah, well I'll just disregard your foaming at the mouth for the BCS when questioning my points.

Next time read better.

It took you three posts before you accurately debate what I'm saying. I wouldn't be so condescending next time when you are arguing against someone that agrees with you.

Funny, the one complaining about snide remarks then goes and makes his own. Your argument was against a playoff. Mine was for it.

We're not in agreement here.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:11 PM
I'm an alum of a school that strives to make the I-AA playoffs every year (James Madison - 2004 I-AA National Champs) and it's great. Sure it's flawed but the arguments the BCS apologists make against a playoff system are a joke, just like the BCS itself.

James Madison won the title with 2 losses.

I guess I'm a joke for not wanting any part in crap like that.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 03:12 PM
NCAA Division III has a 28 team playoff.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:12 PM
Funny, the one complaining about snide remarks then goes and makes his own. Your argument was against a playoff. Mine was for it.

We're not in agreement here.

Then argue against the polls next time. You were condescending and rude about a BCS system I can't stand.

You shouldn't be surprised I called you on it.

Read better next time or argue relevant points.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:17 PM
James Madison won the title with 2 losses.

I guess I'm a joke for not wanting any part in crap like that.

Yes, a system that places value on meaningless preseason polls, unfairly punishes teams who lose earlier in the season less harshly, produces multiple champions and plays out an enlogated postseason full of meaningless corporate-sponsored bowl games is what I'm looking for. Sign me up.

RichRed
11-07-2006, 03:17 PM
James Madison won the title with 2 losses.

I guess I'm a joke for not wanting any part in crap like that.

Well, since Harvard was the only I-AA team to go undefeated that season and the Ivy League doesn't participate in the playoffs, I suppose they should have just picked the two teams that seemed like the best to face off in a championship - like they do in I-A?

No thanks.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:20 PM
Well, since Harvard was the only I-AA team to go undefeated that season and the Ivy League doesn't participate in the playoffs, I suppose they should have just picked the two teams that seemed like the best to face off in a championship - like they do in I-A?

No thanks.

Anything but allowing a two loss team to claim a championship.

I guess that playoff proved everything.

I'm just looking forward to that Michigan VS TOSU game on November 18th. It's gonna be very important to the seedings. Maybe the Buckeyes can sit Troy Smith and rest him for the playoffs?

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:21 PM
NCAA Division III has a 28 team playoff.

It's interesting that the comparison was made earlier to the old MLB system of only having a 4 team playoff. Back in the early 90s, when MLB was 26 teams, this represented 15% of the teams in MLB making the postseason. I'd be thrilled if college football adopted a similar policy, which would equate to a 16 team playoff. Works for me.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:25 PM
I'm just looking forward to that Michigan VS TOSU game on November 18th. It's gonna be very important to the seedings. Maybe the Buckeyes can sit Troy Smith and rest him for the playoffs?

So much for being tired of condescending talk, eh?

RichRed
11-07-2006, 03:28 PM
Anything but allowing a two loss team to claim a championship.

I guess that playoff proved everything.


JMU's two losses came to I-A West Virginia and on a last-second FG to conference rival William & Mary, who also made it to the semifinals in the playoffs.

Yeah, it's ridiculous that we had a chance to compete for a championship in a field of teams that all had at least one loss.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 03:28 PM
In 2004, James Madison lost to 1-A power West Virginia at Morgantown and lost at William & Mary on a FG at the buzzer.

I'm not a JM fan, but those aren't bad losses. And then to win a post-season 16 team bracket against all of the highest ranked 1-AA teams (well, minus the Ivy's), those are compelling reasons. IMHO that is.

Cedric
11-07-2006, 03:30 PM
So much for being tired of condescending talk, eh?

Did you not read your own post?

I can stoop just as low as you can.

You have been incredibly condescending and rude from the outset today, I don't have to show you anymore respect than you have shown me. I don't know if this is how you always debate, but it's pretty immature.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2006, 03:33 PM
Hey guys, I'd like to talk BCS. If you have a problem with each other, please take it off-line.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 03:48 PM
I can stoop just as low as you can.

Impressive.

Anyway, with respect to the BCS, I think the JMU example is a good argument *for* a playoff, not against one. There, you had a field with no clear-cut "best team", and rather than relying on some computers or sportswriters to make that determination, the teams got a chance to play it out on the field. If the argument is that James Madison was not deserving of the championship that year, I would be interested to hear a reasoned argument as to who would be, and why that team was unable to be victorious in the playoffs.

Spring~Fields
11-07-2006, 05:50 PM
I would like to see a playoff system that involved the top 5-6 teams, incorporate it in some manner that the bowl games get those games and be done with the BCS.

In a way I think this year with no truly great teams along with Michigan and Ohio State setting at the top will end up pointing to more problems with the BCS.

Virginia Beach Reds
11-07-2006, 10:28 PM
I think Michigan and OSU are the best teams in the land.

Hands Down.

Let em play for 3 Saturday's in a row every year.

They will work it out.

GO BLUE!

Spring~Fields
11-08-2006, 10:29 AM
It is late in the OSU-Michigan game on an over cast day. Michigan has
the ball on the OSU 3, with 2 seconds, and down 14-10. There is time for
one more play. Lloyd Carr calls time out. As the team is coming to the
sideline, Lloyd looks to the heavens and says, "God - I've been a good
man. A church going man. I've tried to do what's right and I've never
asked you for anything. But,this is a big game and if I could get a
little guidance, I would be forever Grateful". The clouds part, sun
shines on Lloyd and he hears a voice bellow "I Right 39 Pitch Trap".
Lloyd can"t believe it! God himself gave him the play! It"ll work for
sure. The team comes to the sideline and Lloyd excitedly gives them the
play. The timeout ends and the teams come back on the field. Lloyd can
barely contain his excitement-he's going to win. Play resumes and the
ball is snapped. The Mi chigan QB pitches to the back. For a split
second, there's a hole-which is quickly filled by Laurinaitis, who
tackles the Michigan back short of the goal line. Time expires and the
Ohio State players storm the field to celebrate. Lloyd is in shock-he
can't believe the play didn't work. He looks to the heavens and cries,
"God-why did you call THAT play?" God looks down, shrugs, turns to his
right and says, "Woody - why did we call that play".

BuckeyeRedleg
11-08-2006, 11:07 AM
It is late in the OSU-Michigan game on an over cast day. Michigan has
the ball on the OSU 3, with 2 seconds, and down 14-10. There is time for
one more play. Lloyd Carr calls time out. As the team is coming to the
sideline, Lloyd looks to the heavens and says, "God - I've been a good
man. A church going man. I've tried to do what's right and I've never
asked you for anything. But,this is a big game and if I could get a
little guidance, I would be forever Grateful". The clouds part, sun
shines on Lloyd and he hears a voice bellow "I Right 39 Pitch Trap".
Lloyd can"t believe it! God himself gave him the play! It"ll work for
sure. The team comes to the sideline and Lloyd excitedly gives them the
play. The timeout ends and the teams come back on the field. Lloyd can
barely contain his excitement-he's going to win. Play resumes and the
ball is snapped. The Mi chigan QB pitches to the back. For a split
second, there's a hole-which is quickly filled by Laurinaitis, who
tackles the Michigan back short of the goal line. Time expires and the
Ohio State players storm the field to celebrate. Lloyd is in shock-he
can't believe the play didn't work. He looks to the heavens and cries,
"God-why did you call THAT play?" God looks down, shrugs, turns to his
right and says, "Woody - why did we call that play".

Awesome. You get a leaf.

Chip R
11-08-2006, 02:04 PM
I'm an alum of a school that strives to make the I-AA playoffs every year (James Madison - 2004 I-AA National Champs) and it's great. Sure it's flawed but the arguments the BCS apologists make against a playoff system are a joke, just like the BCS itself.


As am I. We went to the national championship game for the first time last year and it was quite a ride. All 3 playoff games came down to the last play or minute - minus the championship game which I don't really want to talk about :( - and it was very exciting.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the 1-AA playoff system, here is how it works:

There are 15 conferences that play 1-AA football. 8 of those (Atlantic 10, Big Sky, Gateway, MEAC, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Southern and Southland) get automatic bids for their respective conference champions to the 16 team playoff field. The rest of the 1-AA conferences are the SWAC, MAAC, Ivy, Big South, Great West, Northeast and Pioneer. The Ivy League doesn't want to be involved in the playoffs and the Pioneer League doesn't give out athletic scholarships. The SWAC has a title game they send their conference champ to in mid-December so only second place teams and below could make the playoffs. Other leagues like the MAAC and Big South only have 5 schools in their conference and you need 6 to get an auto-bid. All these other teams (minus the schools that just came up from Division II), plus the schools from the auto-bid conferences that don't win their championship, are eligible for the 8 at large spots.

Now here are the conferences that play Division 1 football. Big 10, Big 12, Big East, WAC, Mountain West, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Sun Belt, Pac 10 and the MAC. Now you can't tell me that you can't figure out a playoff system like 1-AA has with either 16 teams or a few more - giving some teams first round byes. And if 1-A athletes are so much better than 1-AA athletes, they ought to be able to withstand the mental and physical rigors of a playoff if the other divisions can.

HotCorner
11-08-2006, 02:19 PM
I've always been a proponent of a playoff system but have to admit that if one was in place for this season it would lessen the importance of any remaining game with possible BCS ramifications.

As of today, several teams realistically have a shot at the National Championship game:


OSU
Michigan
Louisville
Rutgers
West Virginia
Texas
USC
California
Florida
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Oklahoma
Notre Dame


It's going to be a fun month of football watching. ;)

dabvu2498
11-08-2006, 02:20 PM
I've always been a proponent of a playoff system but have to admit that if one was in place for this season it would lessen the importance of any remaining game with possible BCS ramifications.

As of today, several teams realistically have a shot at the National Championship game:


OSU
Michigan
Louisville
Rutgers
West Virginia
Texas
USC
California
Florida
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Oklahoma
Notre Dame


It's going to be a fun month of football watching. ;)

You can remove LSU from that list, even though they are, by far, the best 2-loss team in I-A.

HotCorner
11-08-2006, 02:35 PM
Key Games in November/December

11/9
Louisville at Rutgers

11/11
Tennessee at Arkansas
Oregon at USC

11/18
Cal at USC
Michigan at Ohio State
Maryland at Boston College
Virginia Tech at Wake Forest

11/24
Texas A&M at Texas
LSU at Arkansas

11/25
Notre Dame at USC
Wake Forest at Maryland

12/2
Rutgers at West Virginia

HotCorner
11-08-2006, 02:37 PM
You can remove LSU from that list, even though they are, by far, the best 2-loss team in I-A.

What if they are to win out and win the SEC Championship game? There are several other variables that would have to come into play but it's possible since they play arguably the best conference it could help their cause.

RichRed
11-08-2006, 02:39 PM
As am I. We went to the national championship game for the first time last year and it was quite a ride. All 3 playoff games came down to the last play or minute - minus the championship game which I don't really want to talk about :( - and it was very exciting.


Chip, you're a Northern Iowa grad? Great season for you guys. Sorry, I was rooting for App. State in the championship. I kind of had to - my wife graduated from there. :)

So my school won it in '04, hers won in '05 and we're both in the top 4 this year. I love the I-AA playoffs, much more exciting for me than the bowl season (granted, I'm biased).

dabvu2498
11-08-2006, 03:08 PM
What if they are to win out and win the SEC Championship game? There are several other variables that would have to come into play but it's possible since they play arguably the best conference it could help their cause.

Auburn would have to lose twice for LSU to win the SEC West. They play UGa and Bama. Ain't gonna happen.

I concur with you on the SEC. I don't think the conference has ever been better. It would have almost been physically impossible for a team in that league to go undefeated in-conference, although the Hogs have an outside chance with UT, Miss St. and LSU left. If they pull that off and their only loss of the season is a loss to USC in the first week of the season, the Hogs have to get consideration.

Chip R
11-08-2006, 09:50 PM
Chip, you're a Northern Iowa grad? Great season for you guys. Sorry, I was rooting for App. State in the championship. I kind of had to - my wife graduated from there. :)

So my school won it in '04, hers won in '05 and we're both in the top 4 this year. I love the I-AA playoffs, much more exciting for me than the bowl season (granted, I'm biased).


Yes I am. Thanks. ASU doesn't look like they have lost a step from last year.

So, I did some figuring tonight. It isn't perfect but it ain't bad. You can model it somewhat after the 1-AA playoffs but expand it somewhat. Instead of 16 teams you have 20. Give the BCS conferences automatic bids and perhaps the MAC as well which takes care of 6-7 bids. Then let the rest of the schools vie for the 13-14 at large bids. The bottom 8 play the first week for the chance to play the first 4 seeds in the 2nd round. 1 plays the winner of the 20-13 game; 2 plays the winner of the 18-15 game and so on. Sure, you're going to get some whining about a team getting screwed but that's going to happen anyway unless you have every team involved. I suppose if you want to get the bowls involved, you play the 1st 2 rounds on campus sites and then pick the top 7 bowls that want to be involved and have those games there.

If you're a big fan of the other bowl games, have all the teams that didn't make it go to those games. That way if you finish 6-5 and don't make the playoffs, you still can finish the season on a high note. My guess is that with a playoff system, those bowls will eventually die out of at least dome of the lesser ones will cease to exist.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-08-2006, 10:01 PM
The whole point of the BCS system in to ensure the top two teams in the country play for the title. If Rutgers isn't one of the two best teams in the country (and clearly they're not) then there's no reason for them to be in the title game.

I don't worry about the whole rematch aspect. There have been rematches in the title game before, just not last week rematches like Ohio State/Michigan would be. The whole point is to get #1 vs. #2. If they're two schools that have played before so be it. If it's a school that's lost a game so be it. If it's a school from a weaker conference so be it. All that matters is that #1 plays #2.

Well put, OSU MU twice in a year, only espn could complain about something like that.

RedsBaron
11-09-2006, 06:43 AM
Chip, you're a Northern Iowa grad? Great season for you guys. Sorry, I was rooting for App. State in the championship. I kind of had to - my wife graduated from there. :)

So my school won it in '04, hers won in '05 and we're both in the top 4 this year. I love the I-AA playoffs, much more exciting for me than the bowl season (granted, I'm biased).

Marshall played in the I-AA championship game six times from 1987 through 1996, winning the national title in 1992 and 1996. The 1992 team won on a field goal in the final minute, 31-28, and featured Troy Brown, who would later collect three Super Bowl rings with the Patriots and who last week became New England's all time receptions leader (he's also a great guy). The 1996 team went 15-0 and featured Randy Moss; Moss had 78 receptions that season with 28 TDs.
Marshall faced Younstown State several years in a row in those playoffs; Youngstown's coach later wound up coaching at a school in Columbus, I believe.
Anyway, I loved, and miss, the I-AA playoffs. A true champion was crowned on the field, not by the media.
The I-AA playoff system did give a bit of an unfair advantage to a school such as Marshall that had a new stadium that ranked as among the best in I-AA. Marshall's stadium was the host of the title game from 1992 through 1996, with MU going 2-2 in the title games there. In 1996 Marshall played 11 of its 15 games at home. With all the Marshall football program had been through, that unfair advantage was fine by me.
I wish a similar playoff system was in effect in division I-A, but I am not holding my breath.

Spring~Fields
11-09-2006, 10:23 AM
Well put, OSU MU twice in a year, only espn could complain about something like that.

Beating Michigan twice in one year would be marvelous. :devil:

macro
11-09-2006, 11:30 PM
Bitter loss for Louisville tonight at Rutgers. What was that UL guy thinking who jumped off sides on the FG attempt? Did he think he was going to block it from out there? He cost them a shot at the championship game.

Rutgers will lose at West Virginia, by the way. Regardless of who wins OSU-Michigan, they should play again for the title. I'm not predicting that it will be that way, but it should be. Just because one beats the other doesn't mean that they're not the two best teams.

MWM
11-09-2006, 11:45 PM
I gotta admit, I felt a lot better about Louisville in the National Championship game than Rutgers. I thout Louisville was a legitimately good team and could play with anyone. Unfortunately, I think they were probably thinking ahead after they got out to a big lead and forgot about this game (same thing happened to OSU agianst Michigan State in 1998).

But having said that, if Rutgers goes undefeated, they should absolutley play for the National Title.

paintmered
11-10-2006, 01:15 AM
But having said that, if Rutgers goes undefeated, they should absolutley play for the National Title.

Yep. If there are two undefeated BCS teams out there, they should be playing each other for the national title. Granted, Rutgers will likely be slaughtered once they get there at the hands of tOSU or UM, but it doesn't make them any less deserving.

KronoRed
11-10-2006, 01:46 AM
Bitter loss for Louisville tonight at Rutgers. What was that UL guy thinking who jumped off sides on the FG attempt? Did he think he was going to block it from out there? He cost them a shot at the championship game.


Disagree, the kicker looked up when the guy jumped offsides then pushed the kick, I think he makes it easy if the guy doesn't jump.

marcshoe
11-10-2006, 03:11 AM
At any rate, this makes the WVU/Rutgers game more interesting, and I have tickets.

macro
11-10-2006, 08:54 AM
Disagree, the kicker looked up when the guy jumped offsides then pushed the kick, I think he makes it easy if the guy doesn't jump.

You know, Krono, that thought crossed my mind after I posted that. Maybe he and Lville fans shouldn't feel so badly about that play, after all.

As for Rutgers, they don't have a chance of playing in the title game. There will still be too many teams ranked ahead of them with too few weeks left in the season. Not saying it's right, but they're being penalized for the low expectations of them coming into the season.

HotCorner
11-10-2006, 09:08 AM
At any rate, this makes the WVU/Rutgers game more interesting, and I have tickets.

UC gets first crack at Rutgers next Saturday in Cincinnati. It's the preverbial letdown game (i.e. sandwiched between Louisville and WV).

NJReds
11-10-2006, 09:16 AM
UC gets first crack at Rutgers next Saturday in Cincinnati. It's the preverbial letdown game (i.e. sandwiched between Louisville and WV).

Rutgers has to play Cincinnati and Syracuse before playing WV.

But this is a huge letdown game v. Cincinnati. I don't see how they'll have any emotion left in the tank after last night.

NJReds
11-10-2006, 09:20 AM
Granted, Rutgers will likely be slaughtered once they get there at the hands of OSU or UM, but it doesn't make them any less deserving.

I don't see anyone beating OSU. I think they are by far the best team in the NCAA. Unbelievable talent on that squad, and to think how many guys they lost from last year's squad that are playing in the NFL. They are a powerhouse.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-10-2006, 10:28 PM
I had to guess on some of the rankings, but anyway this is what I think a 16 team playoff setting would bring. I cant even imagine how pumped Id be to watch these games, basketball tourny times 10. Im even going on a limb and predicting who i think would win. Ofcourse its a tourny theres gotta be some fun upsets along the but you wont find too much of that on my bracket.


1 Ohio State

16 Tenn.



8 Cal

9 ND



5 Rutgers

12 LSU



4 Texas

13 Louisville



6 Auburn

11 Arkansas



3 Florida

14 Boise St.



7 USC

10 WVU



2 Michigan


15 Wisconsin

OSU beats Tenn
ND beats Cal
LSU beats Rutgers
Texas beats Louisville
Auburn beats Arkansas
Florida beats Boise st
USC beats WV
MICH beats Wisc.

OSU beats Notre Dame
Texas beats LSU
Florida beats Auburn
Mich beats USC

OSU beats Texas
Mich beats Florida

OSU beats Michigan for the national title

Too bad this cant happen because there is some great football games here, and these rankings will all change by then, for sure after the OSU MICH game. Oh well just something to think about.

BuckeyeRed27
11-11-2006, 12:26 AM
I don't really like the idea of a playoff but 16 teams would be WAAY to many. I think something like a 6 team playoff where the top 2 teams get a bye would be more apporiate just like the NFL playoffs.

Reds Fanatic
11-11-2006, 12:48 AM
What they should do is have an 8 team playoff. You could take the current BCS Bowl games (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar and Orange) and those would be the quaterfinals. Then a week after those games you play the semifinals. Then during the weekend off before the Super Bowl they could play the championship game. This plan would make every BCS game important and only involves 2 extra games for those that make the championship game. The plan makes perfect sense which is why they will never do it.

SandyD
11-11-2006, 09:06 AM
You're up against NFL playoffs at that point. 8 is a tough number. Conferences are going to want automatic bids.

Travel is another issue. Are you, as a fan, going to travel three weeks in a row ... or three out of 4 weeks to see your team play? Would you travel from Columbus to AZ to see the Buckeyes play in the Fiesta Bowl if it was the first round of the playoffs?

Why not consider just 4 teams? Two bowls would host the first round ... a third bowl would host the national championship game a week or so later. The fourth bowl gets the pick of the rest. Only two weeks of travel for the fans/students. Doesn't interfere with finals or the start of a new term.

Caveat Emperor
11-11-2006, 12:41 PM
Travel is another issue. Are you, as a fan, going to travel three weeks in a row ... or three out of 4 weeks to see your team play? Would you travel from Columbus to AZ to see the Buckeyes play in the Fiesta Bowl if it was the first round of the playoffs?


Most of the teams we're talking about here have such extremely large fanbases that it really doesn't matter -- some fans will travel for an opening round playoff game, other fans will travel for an additional playoff game. Having them in different areas of the country (week 1 is in California, for example, and week 2 is in atlanta) will also allow different fans to travel due to shorter travel times.

Further, these bowl games are such big-ticket sporting events that I imagine they'd sell themselves even with slightly reduced travel.



Why not consider just 4 teams? Two bowls would host the first round ... a third bowl would host the national championship game a week or so later. The fourth bowl gets the pick of the rest. Only two weeks of travel for the fans/students. Doesn't interfere with finals or the start of a new term.

Any academic reason for doing things with college football went out the window when they started allowing practices prior to the start of term and pushed the bowl season out past the first of the year.

SandyD
11-11-2006, 01:52 PM
Regarding academics, I'm not talking only about the players. The band and cheerleaders too would be affected. AND any student who is a sports fan at a school whose team is in the playoffs will be somewhat distracted and unable to travel to early rounds if they conflict with finals ... etc.

I know when the Sugar Bowl and Super Bowl are here, a lot of people come without tickets ... some hoping to find them, and others just want to be here for the celebration ... national championship or not.

I realize that there are a lot of fans ... just not sure how many would choose to attend early round games ... especially if it was far way. Especially since a lot of schools would be in the playoffs nearly every year.

Frankly, I think that if you are going to do a college playoff, you either keep the bowls, and make the playoff field a short one ... like the four teams playoff I mentioned ... and you can keep the bowls ... or you go all the way to a 16-team field. Elimintate conference championship games, and start the first week of December. Forget finals. Play the first two rounds at home stadiums based on seeding. The final two or three rounds can be played at neutral sites. Eliminate the bowls.

Spring~Fields
11-11-2006, 07:11 PM
#3 Louisville loses,
#5 Auburn loses again, and
#6 Florida squeaks by unranked SC by 1pt.
#8 Cal loses for the second time, this time to unranked AZ
Ohio State already beat #4 Texas
Michigan already beat also ranked #8 Notre Dame

No question who is number 1 and number 2 and regardless of that Nov 18 outcome neither of those teams should be ranked lower than 1 or 2.

The pollsters have already voted them, judged them 1-2 and better than the rest and those closest ones/teams to them have supported the pollsters correct this weekend.

A true number 2 team is suppose to lose to a true number 1,
so if they do they should stay #2,
and if a number 1 loses to a number 2, then they should go no lower than 2 especially since the pollsters would be contradicting their previous rankings that number 1 was better than all the rest all year if they do.

I think we will find out why polls and the BCS doesn’t mean a whole lot in reality and once again see why a playoff is needed between the top four. Especially if a Michigan or Ohio State is dropped down to join those other pretenders that lost this week or sqeaked by after Nov 18.

cincinnati chili
11-11-2006, 07:38 PM
Boise State losing at halftime:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263150023&confId=null

GAC
11-11-2006, 08:06 PM
#3 Louisville loses,
#5 Auburn loses again, and
#6 Florida squeaks by unranked SC by 1pt.
Ohio State already beat #4 Texas
No question who is number 1 and number 2 and regardless of that Nov 18 outcome neither of those teams should be ranked lower than 1 or 2.

The pollsters have already voted them, judged them 1-2 and better than the rest and those closest ones to them have supported the pollsters this weekend.

A true number 2 team is suppose to lose to a true number 1,
so if they do they should stay #2,
and if a number 1 loses to a number 2, then they should go no lower than 2 especially since the pollsters would be contradicting their previous rankings that number 1 was better than all the rest all year if they do.

I think we will find out why polls and the BCS doesnít mean a whole lot in reality and once again see why a playoff is needed between the top four.

When you lose late in the season if hurts far more then when you lose early.

The loser of the OSU-Michigan game, even if it's a close game, is going to get screwed either way in the rankings/BCS IMO.

How ironic will it be if OSU loses a close one next week and Texas, which is going to move up in the rankings after the Louisville and Auburn losses, ends up in the NC game if they win out? ;)

Spring~Fields
11-11-2006, 08:16 PM
When you lose late in the season if hurts far more then when you lose early.

The loser of the OSU-Michigan game, even if it's a close game, is going to get screwed either way in the rankings/BCS IMO.

How ironic will it be if OSU loses a close one next week and Texas, which is going to move up in the rankings after the Louisville and Auburn losses, ends up in the NC game if they win out? ;)

Your reading my mind, be careful :evil: ....

I agree, it just isn't right for either team when one of them loses to the very top or next to the best team in the country to be dropped down as a penalty for losing to the best team or the second best team in the country, when those teams following have done nothing but prove the pollsters correct in ranking them lower all along.

Spring~Fields
11-11-2006, 08:23 PM
How ironic will it be if OSU loses a close one next week and Texas, which is going to move up in the rankings after the Louisville and Auburn losses, ends up in the NC game if they win out? ;)

That very well could happen, it will happen. Even if OSU or Michigan loses by 3 or less on the 18th.

What about USC and Notre Dame? You know their polster supporters want them in. But I think that USC will lose another game yet.

traderumor
11-11-2006, 08:24 PM
Yep. If there are two undefeated BCS teams out there, they should be playing each other for the national title. Granted, Rutgers will likely be slaughtered once they get there at the hands of tOSU or UM, but it doesn't make them any less deserving.I don't understand the logic here. A team goes undefeated, beats an already dubious #3 Louisville, and then is very likely to not be a worthy opponent for either Ohio State or Michigan, yet they deserve it because they won all their games, even though they are admittedly an inferior team to probably any other team in the top 10, who was also ranked #15 prior to beating Louisville. That really doesn't make any sense.

It definately makes less sense than what is being discussed above, which I agree that a close, dramatic game next week will show how wanting the BCS system is for truly getting the two best teams in the NC game. My thought is that tOSU ought to be no worse than #2 even if they lost next week, as long as they didn't lay an egg and get blown out. But I know that is not going to happen.

MWM
11-11-2006, 08:35 PM
It makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is deciding who the best teams are based entirely on personal opinion when many of the teams in question don't even share a single common opponent and play entirely different schedules. It might not be perfect, but it's the lesser of two evils absent a playoff. It's just not logical to me for a team to go undefeated in a major conference, but to have pundits somehow decide that this undefeated isn't as worthy as another undefeated. If you keep an undefeated from a major conference out of the title game when there isn't another undefeated team, you're basically admitting that coming into the season only a handful of teams have a chance. And as someone already mentioned in this thread, if that happens you may as well have the top 12-15 teams play in a league, something like the Champions League in European soccer, where the winner is corwned champion.

When given the choice, it's pretty much ALWAYS right to take what happened on the field versus personal opinion.

Spring~Fields
11-11-2006, 08:46 PM
My thought is that tOSU ought to be no worse than #2 even if they lost next week, as long as they didn't lay an egg and get blown out. But I know that is not going to happen.

I think that can happen to, but also would add that Michigan might lose a close game to OSU, and how in the world does it make a given team (Michigan) worse than the teams below them for losing a close game to a number one team? They should still be number two in such a case it seems to me.

Sea Ray
11-11-2006, 08:51 PM
No way the loser of the OSU-MI game should get a crack at the title game. Their chance is Nov 18th. The Big Ten is so weak this year MI
and OSU look like world beaters. OSU has beaten one team in the current top 25. If they lose to MI and go to the BCS title game they will have done so on the basis of beating Texas and that's it. No, the resume of a team in the title game has got to be better than that.

gonelong
11-11-2006, 09:40 PM
No way the loser of the OSU-MI game should get a crack at the title game. Their chance is Nov 18th. The Big Ten is so weak this year MI
and OSU look like world beaters. OSU has beaten one team in the current top 25. If they lose to MI and go to the BCS title game they will have done so on the basis of beating Texas and that's it. No, the resume of a team in the title game has got to be better than that.

On the Flip side if OSU beats Michigan and then wins the National title, they will likely be known as one of the greatest teams of all time. Undefeated, and having beating 3 teams ranked #2 at the time, and quite possibly handing each of those teams (Texas, Mich, and Rutgers) their only loses of the season.

I'd doubt something even remotely close to that has ever been done.

GL

traderumor
11-11-2006, 09:42 PM
It makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is deciding who the best teams are based entirely on personal opinion when many of the teams in question don't even share a single common opponent and play entirely different schedules. It might not be perfect, but it's the lesser of two evils absent a playoff. It's just not logical to me for a team to go undefeated in a major conference, but to have pundits somehow decide that this undefeated isn't as worthy as another undefeated. If you keep an undefeated from a major conference out of the title game when there isn't another undefeated team, you're basically admitting that coming into the season only a handful of teams have a chance. And as someone already mentioned in this thread, if that happens you may as well have the top 12-15 teams play in a league, something like the Champions League in European soccer, where the winner is corwned champion.

When given the choice, it's pretty much ALWAYS right to take what happened on the field versus personal opinion.

And your conclusion is solely personal opinion that the only thing that matters is "undefeated from a major conference." I guess putting this all to rest would be letting a clear mismatch happen so that tOSU or UM can stomp them and remind every one once again that "major conference" is a mighty big generalization in college football. And yes, every year there is a handful of teams that have a legitimate shot at playing for the NC. That's reality in the world of college football. BTW, apparently Rutgers played Illinois and beat them 33-0. So, why aren't they #1?

Rutgers is the Utah Utes of 2006 and merely goes to show how lame the BCS system is. It just really isn't much of an improvement of the "mythical" NC other than now the mythical top two teams play against each other in a game.

traderumor
11-11-2006, 09:45 PM
No way the loser of the OSU-MI game should get a crack at the title game. Their chance is Nov 18th. The Big Ten is so weak this year MI
and OSU look like world beaters. OSU has beaten one team in the current top 25. If they lose to MI and go to the BCS title game they will have done so on the basis of beating Texas and that's it. No, the resume of a team in the title game has got to be better than that.Would that be the same Texas team that hasn't lost another game and is in position for a possible rematch? Ohio State has simply proven every week (excepting one bad half of football last week) that they are head and shoulders above any other program this year. They only have to prove that one more week.

MWM
11-11-2006, 09:47 PM
No, the resume of a team in the title game has got to be better than that.


Like who? Who this year of the one loss teams has an impressive resume? And beating the #3 team in thr country, giving them their only loss in close to 30 games, and doing it on their home field is an impressive feat.

I just don't but the "their chance is the 18th" argument for either OSU or Michigan. You could say the same thing for any of the other teams that have lost, replacing the 18th with the date of the game they lost. When it's all said and done, the loser of next week's game will have one loss, and against the best team in the country. And no other team (except potentially Rutgers who WILL lose to WVU) can say any more than that. The fact that their loss is the last game of the season really doesn't change the fact that it's still one loss to the #1 team.

I can totally understand why folks wouldn't WANT to see a rematch. I agree it would be anti-climactic, but when it comes to what's equitable I think whoever loses that game (unless it's a blowout) should be the one loss team in the title game. I think it's clear those are the two best teams in the nation.

Heck, if OSU wins, they'll likely face Texas. Couldn't you say they had their chance back in September? It's not like the Big 12 has ANYONE any good. They're the worst major conference in the country. I agree with Roy, without a playoff system, there's no true fair way to decide.

Reds Fanatic
11-11-2006, 10:35 PM
Now #4 Texas is down 14 with about 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. OSU and Michigan may rematch in the National Championship game because all the big schools with one loss are going down. If Texas loses the #3, #4, and #5 team will have lost this weekend and #6 barely won.

Edit just after I posted that now Texas is down 42-21 to Kansas State.

Mutaman
11-11-2006, 10:48 PM
[QUOTE=MWM;1190987]
When it's all said and done, the loser of next week's game will have one loss, and against the best team in the country. And no other team (except potentially Rutgers who WILL lose to WVU) can say any more than that. The fact that their loss is the last game of the season really doesn't change the fact that it's still one loss to the #1 team.

I can totally understand why folks wouldn't WANT to see a rematch. I agree it would be anti-climactic, but when it comes to what's equitable I think whoever loses that game (unless it's a blowout) should be the one loss team in the title game. I think it's clear those are the two best teams in the nation.

QUOTE]

Well if Michigan beats OSU next week, and OSU still plays Michigan in the title game, I as a Wisconsin fan, would be a little upset. It would mean that both teams had one loss to Michigan, Wisconsin on the road and OSU at home, and yet OSU was still ranked higher than Wisconsin despite a pretty similiar schedule.

Spring~Fields
11-11-2006, 11:56 PM
#3 Louisville loses, to number 15 ranked Rutgers
#4 Texas lost again this time to an unranked Kansas St.
#5 Auburn loses again, and to unranked Georgia
#6 Florida squeaks by unranked SC by 1pt.
#8 Cal loses for the second time, this time to unranked AZ

Makes everything even more interesting now

Spring~Fields
11-11-2006, 11:58 PM
No way the loser of the OSU-MI game should get a crack at the title game.

Who do you think should get a "crack" at the title game if a 11-1 team doesn't?

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 12:07 AM
It would mean that both teams had one loss to Michigan, Wisconsin on the road and OSU at home, and yet OSU was still ranked higher than Wisconsin despite a pretty similiar schedule.

Wisconsin does deserve more respect and a much higher ranking.

Sea Ray
11-12-2006, 12:12 AM
Like who? Who this year of the one loss teams has an impressive resume? And beating the #3 team in thr country, giving them their only loss in close to 30 games, and doing it on their home field is an impressive feat.



There are all sorts of better candidates. Of course to be certain we have a few more weeks to play but since you asked let me give you some much better choices than the Big Ten runnerup.

As of right now I'd say the most impressive team for a potential #2 would be the SEC champion. It'll likely be either Florida or Arkansas. Whoever wins in the SEC championship game in Atl. If it's Ark then they will have beaten ranked teams: Auburn, Tennessee, LSU and FL. If FL wins they will have beaten Tenn, LSU and ARK.

If USC continues to run the table they will have beaten ARK, OR, OR ST, ND, Cal and NEB.

Then there's Rutgers who will have gone undefeated having beaten top ten teams, WVa and Louisville.

No way a one loss OSU or MI will be able to compete with resumes like those just mentioned.

Sea Ray
11-12-2006, 12:17 AM
Who do you think should get a "crack" at the title game if a 11-1 team doesn't?

A bunch. Rutgers, Arkansas, Florida, USC to name a few (all with one or zero losses).

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 12:19 AM
There are all sorts of better candidates. Of course to be certain we have a few more weeks to play but since you asked let me give you some much better choices than the Big Ten runnerup.

As of right now I'd say the most impressive team for a potential #2 would be the SEC champion. It'll likely be either Florida or Arkansas. Whoever wins in the SEC championship game in Atl. If it's Ark then they will have beaten ranked teams: Auburn, Tennessee, LSU and FL. If FL wins they will have beaten Tenn, LSU and ARK.

If USC continues to run the table they will have beaten ARK, OR, OR ST, ND, and NEB.

Then there's Rutgers who will have gone undefeated having beaten top ten teams, WVa and Louisville.

No way a one loss OSU or MI will be able to compete with resumes like those just mentioned.

You honestly believe that the teams that you have discussed above are better than Ohio State and Michigan?

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 12:24 AM
A bunch. Rutgers, Arkansas, Florida, USC to name a few (all with one or zero losses).

But won't WV beat Rutgers? Florida barely escaped unranked SC today by 1, USC might get beat by Notre Dame for a second loss. Arkansas has been playing very well and you might be right there.

Sea Ray
11-12-2006, 12:38 AM
You honestly believe that the teams that you have discussed above are better than Ohio State and Michigan?

Let me be very clear. I think the winner of the OSU-MI game should go into the BCS championship game ranked #1. I am saying any of those teams that survive without losing another game should be ranked higher than the loser of the OSU-MI game.

MWM
11-12-2006, 01:51 AM
I don't know. From what I've watched, the best candidates are USC, NOtre Dame, and Florida. USC has squeaked by to barely beat several weak opponents, and lost to an unranked Oregon State team. It took a blocked extra point and a blocked field goal for Florida to beat a bad South Carolina team. And Notre Dame, while they have looked good lately, have looked suspect on several occassions this year (i.e. Michigan State). Notre Dame and USC will play, so it will come down to Florida and the winner of that game. I think, based on level of domination this year and impressive wins against the likes of Notre Dame and Texas, both on the road, that the clear best two teams in the country are Michigan and Ohio State.

I don't think it's at all fair that if the two best teams in the country happen to play in the same conference, that a lesser team who doesn't happen to play in the same conference as the #1 team in the nation, should somehow be elevated to #2 simply because they're in a different conference.

I can understand all the arguments behind not liking the matchup or not wanting it. Heck, I think it owuld be pretty lame to have those two teams meet the very next game for the national title. But IMO, it's very clear they're the best two teams. And at this point, unless Rutgers beats WVU (will never happen) no other team has done anything more on the field to *deserve* to play for it all than the loser of that game. The only exception would be if it's a blowout.

KronoRed
11-12-2006, 02:15 AM
Hey now, OSU beat a 9 and soon to be 10 loss Illinois team by a whopping 7 points last week, USCe is at least going to be going to a bowl ;)

IMO teams that don't win their conferences should not play for the mythical national championship.

Also, it's not really fair to ask the OSU/UM winner to beat a team they already beat again, what if each teams wins one? rubber game in mid January?

MWM
11-12-2006, 03:03 AM
Hey now, OSU beat a 9 and soon to be 10 loss Illinois team by a whopping 7 points last week, USCe is at least going to be going to a bowl ;)

They were up 17-0 at the end of Q3. The game was never in question. It was the one time this season they didn't pretty much blow out the other team.


IMO teams that don't win their conferences should not play for the mythical national championship.

I can see the point behind this, but it's not black and white. Under the current system, there's just no right or wrong answer. My response would be what if the two best teams in the country happen to play in the same conference? It seems like if you're the second best team in the country, you shouldn't be penalized because the #1 happens to be in your conference. And if you're the #3 team, you shouldn't be elevated because that #1 team is in a different conference. I hate the fact that we have to debate this, but there's legitimate opinons on both sides of the fence here.



Also, it's not really fair to ask the OSU/UM winner to beat a team they already beat again, what if each teams wins one? rubber game in mid January?

Yep, and that's the biggest problem with a rematch game and why I wouldn't particulalry WANT to see it. If the team that loses the first one wins, then it's hard to call them a true National Champion as they simply split with the other team. If the same team wins, people will be saying that the champ already proved they could beat that team, so another team should have been there.

It's a mess and there's just no perfectly fair way to decide. No matter who goes, there's going to be another team or two with a legitimate argument for why they should be there instead.

Caveat Emperor
11-12-2006, 04:02 AM
You honestly believe that the teams that you have discussed above are better than Ohio State and Michigan?

The degree of seperation between OSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, and USC isn't as great as many people would have you believe (I'm very "eh" on Florida, after watching them play a few times).

I'm hoping either OSU or Michigan gets drilled on Saturday and puts an end to this ridiculous talk of a re-match national title game.

If Rutgers goes undefeated, they should play the winner of OSU/Mich. Period. You win a BCS conference and go undefeated, you should play in a BCS title game unless there are more than 2 undefeated teams.

If Rutgers loses, then the winner of the USC/ND game should play the winner of OSU/Mich for the national title.

RedsBaron
11-12-2006, 07:02 AM
IMO teams that don't win their conferences should not play for the mythical national championship.

Also, it's not really fair to ask the OSU/UM winner to beat a team they already beat again, what if each teams wins one? rubber game in mid January?

I agree. Rather than a re-match, I would as soon see the winner of the OSU-UM game next week declared the national champion and then matched up against, say, 0-10 Duke in a bowl game. Declare the championship race over and give 'em a victory tour.
Now I don't really want that, but I also really don't want the supposed BCS championship game to just be a repeat of OSU-UM. Match up the OSU-UM winner against USC, Arkansas, Rutgers, Florida, WVU, Notre Dame, Boise State----anything but a re-match.

GAC
11-12-2006, 07:46 AM
Louisville, Auburn, and NOW Texas have lost.

Florida squeaked by S. Carolina, but they still get a "W" in the column and will move up to #3.

They have Western Carolina and Florida State left on their schedule. I doubt they will stumble against a 5-5 FS team who just got their clock cleaned by Wake Forrest.

So it looks like destiny is in Florida's hands as far as the NC game goes.

If the OSU-Michigan game is a close hard fought game.... and every indication is it will be because they always are.... it's kind of sad that the loser will be left out of that championship game. This year presents a perplexing situation for the BCS heirarchy since the top 2 undefeated teams are from the same conference AND that they always finish the year playing each other. A unique situation.

But there is no way that they are going to let a NC game be a re-match.

And when Florida faces whoever, the question will still be raised if the top two teams in the nation are really being represented in the game.

Unless Michigan loses in the Rose Bowl! Then that would answer that question. :lol:

RFS62
11-12-2006, 07:57 AM
I don't understand the sentiment against a re-match if OSU and Michigan really are the two best teams.

GAC
11-12-2006, 08:26 AM
I don't understand the sentiment against a re-match if OSU and Michigan really are the two best teams.

As far as I'm concerned, and in most people's eyes, next week is the NC game.

But it's all about Marketing and $$$$$ and diversity.

Since those two teams play next week, the nation does not want to see the same two in an NC game AGAIN.

It's the "been there, done that" syndrome. ;)

If the loser next week should happen to win in a NC rematch, people would still be scratching their heads, while many others would be screaming UNFAIR!

The BCS is gonna avoid that scenario completely, and wishes that these two teams weren't meeting next week because it does screw up their system.

They are going to have to match the winner with a team that probably isn't the #2 team in the nation.

Cie la Vie

RANDY IN INDY
11-12-2006, 10:15 AM
At this point, OSU is the #1 without a doubt, but I'm still not at all convinced that Michigan is the #2 team in the nation.

cincinnati chili
11-12-2006, 11:20 AM
I don't understand the sentiment against a re-match if OSU and Michigan really are the two best teams.

Even if there's another major conference unbeaten out there?

MWM
11-12-2006, 11:46 AM
Even if there's another major conference unbeaten out there?

If there's another conference unbeaten, that makes the argument moot in my opinion. I think it assumes Rutgers loses to WVU.

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 11:55 AM
I really canít disagree with any of you very much after reading and considering each of your follow up thoughts. Thank god that the rest of you can communicate and articulate so much better than I vs. my butchered up, fragmented input regarding the scenario of having the current number one and two teams coming from the same conference playing their last game of their regular season, which in this case appears to be the true championship game, making the BCS championship game appear redundant and unnecessary.

The original goal of the BCS, if my understanding is correct, was to try to put to rest the argument of who really is the National Champion or who really is the best team in the land at the conclusion of a given season.

I think that this situation or present scenario is one that rarely occurs but it also exploits once again the flaws in the poll system that feeds the BCS computer rankings and actually exploits the flaws in the BCS system. I recognize that our group here on these threads may be a small sample, but it points out something that occurred prior to the BCS, that being one side thinks this and the other thinks that and in between etc. So we still canít determine conclusively who really is the best or the very closest thing that we can come to, to determine who is the true National Champion, the best team in the land. Perhaps the losses that came up since Thursdayís game with Louisville and those losses Saturday point out how erroneous the regular polls are to begin with, those flawed polls feed the BCS system which makes it flawed. Then we are back to the old question of the integrity and credibility in selecting the true champion and the best in the land.

It seems to me that the entire thread is a good example that supports the argument for a small playoff system that might involve the top four to six teams where the present bowls get those games for the playoffs so they wonít lose money, the worthy schools can play in the top bowls and make their money, while it leads to determine as closely as possible who really is the National Champion. We or they may never be able to come up with conclusive and objective proof as to who is the best team in the land in a given year because of the various variables. They can come up with a playoff system that serves all the purposes much more closely than the poll systems because they are just some sort of barometer or measure, but they are not proof.

At present who really knows if Michigan or Ohio State can beat WV, USC, Arakansas or Notre Dame or visa versa if they played each other today? Certainly not I because I have my doubts. Florida and Rutgers donít even enter my mind as having a chance, but then again who knows without a good playoff system?

Reds Freak
11-12-2006, 12:11 PM
In my opinion, it should be the winner of OSU/Mich vs. the winner of the SEC Championship game (assuming its Florida/Arkansas) unless USC wins out against Cal, ND, at UCLA then it should be USC instead of the SEC team. If ND is the one team that USC loses to and ND wins out and OSU beats Mich then it should be OSU vs. ND but if Mich beats OSU then it shouldn't be ND but the winner of the SEC Championship game. Got it? Good.

KronoRed
11-12-2006, 12:14 PM
/\ :explode:


;)

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 12:25 PM
As far as I'm concerned, and in most people's eyes, next week is the NC game.

But it's all about Marketing and $$$$$ and diversity.



Yes, the poll voters are the "gods" who decide who is number one, who is number two. They have determined all season, 100% of the season to date, that Ohio State is number one. It just so happens along the way that the team that they determined was number two is Michigan. Now fittingly or ironicly, they play each other Nov. 18 and where those same poll voters will once again use the outcome to determine who is the legitimate number 1.

The BCS game becomes redundant pomp and pageantry falsely claiming to establish a National Champion because it will have already been decided on Nov. 18. Yes in this case it becomes about money. For that BCS game to not be a rematch the poll "gods" will have to reverse themselves and contradict their previous voting and drop what they have said was number one or two way down below 4-5-6 and they will.
What a joke.

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 12:34 PM
/\ :explode:


;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It's all your fault Krono

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Puffy
11-12-2006, 12:38 PM
If either Notre Dame or USC runs the table I'd have a hard time putting the loser of the OSU-Michigan game into the national title game. Even as a ND fan, I can see that if Michigan wins the OSU game then maybe ND shouldn't be there regardless and would accept it as reality - they played Michigan and lost, thats that. But USC - they just beat a good Oregon team, then they play Cal, then ND, then UCLA. Thats a three game stretch that OSU hasn't seen all year and if USC were to win that out and end with the same record as OSU then USC clearly would be deserving.

One other thing - to whoever said that OSU was clearly number 1 while they weren't sure if Michigan was number 2. Michigan beat ND at ND when ND was number 2. They also beat Wisconsin, handing both teams their only loss. OSU beat Texas. Thats it. A Texas team that lost to Kansas State. So yes, OSU is clearly number 1. But Michigan is clearly number 2 right now. As a matter of fact, based on schedules Michigan is probably number 1 and OSU number 2 - but OSU has been more "convincing" so they get the higher ranking. But Michigan is strong.

Sea Ray
11-12-2006, 12:38 PM
Louisville, Auburn, and NOW Texas have lost.

Florida squeaked by S. Carolina, but they still get a "W" in the column and will move up to #3.

They have Western Carolina and Florida State left on their schedule. I doubt they will stumble against a 5-5 FS team who just got their clock cleaned by Wake Forrest.

So it looks like destiny is in Florida's hands as far as the NC game goes.



I'm going to pick on GAC here but honestly I could have grabbed any number of posts to illustrate that a great number of you do not understand the SEC which is unfortunate because you're missing the best conference in the land.

Two points here,

1) Florida does not have a clear sail into the NC game. In the SEC you have a conference championship game and it's likely that will pit FL vs Arkansas which brings me to my second point.

2) Why are none of you mentioning ARK as a viable national championship contender? They are undefeated in the SEC, looked like a Million $$ yesterday vs Tenn and if the game were played tomorrow would be favored by a TD over FL. Why so many mentions of FL and none of ARK?

Kudos to Reds Freak who very nicely mentioned ARK and the SEC championship game. Rep points coming your way.

Wonder what the ratings will be for the UM-OSU game this Saturday??? Maybe better than the World Series...

Puffy
11-12-2006, 12:42 PM
Yeah, I watched Arkansas again yesterday and they are impressive. Their problem will be USC put a whooping on them and they could end with identical records. Like I said, if USC runs the table they deserve number 2.

Really, the interesting debate would be if ND wins out and Arkansas wins out. I would think that if Michigan wins then it would be Arkansas-Michigan, while if OSU wins it would be ND-OSU. But who knows.

Caveat Emperor
11-12-2006, 12:46 PM
I don't understand the sentiment against a re-match if OSU and Michigan really are the two best teams.

Because if Ohio State loses to Michigan, are they really in THAT much different of a situation than Notre Dame if ND wins out?

How can you honestly say who the better team is, at that point? Both have 1 loss to Michigan -- both almost got caught with their pants down on a Big 10 game they were supposed to win (Illinois w/ OSU and MSU w/ ND), both will have quality wins over a top-10 opponent on the road (Texas w/ OSU and USC w/ ND).

I don't think it is so clear in that situation, for example.

MWM
11-12-2006, 12:52 PM
It's definitely not a clear situation. The winner of Florida/Arkansas and USC/Notre Dame (assuming both would have only one loss) could easily claim a spot in the title game, and have a legitimate argument. But I also think the loser of the OSU/Mich game, unless it's a blowout, would have an equally legit argument. I don't think any of the teams mentioned could really say they deserve it more than the other two. It all comes down to personal opinion, and I HATE that.

And I also agree with Puffy, I thinkk as it stands right now, it's OSU and Mich as the clear #1 and #2, but I think a decent case could be made for Mich #1 and OSU #2. I think the two teams are pretty close.

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 01:31 PM
2) Why are none of you mentioning ARK as a viable national championship contender? They are undefeated in the SEC, looked like a Million $$ yesterday vs Tenn and if the game were played tomorrow would be favored by a TD over FL. Why so many mentions of FL and none of ARK?

Kudos to Reds Freak who very nicely mentioned ARK and the SEC championship game. Rep points coming your way.

Wonder what the ratings will be for the UM-OSU game this Saturday??? Maybe better than the World Series...

Huh? huh um, I mentioned Arkansas, isn't that the same :evil: You don't think that I want my Buckeyes playing that Arkansas or Notre Dame team right now do you? ;) H..., they might get beat.

LoganBuck
11-12-2006, 01:45 PM
The good thing about the OSU/Michigan game is that the arguement will be settled on the field. I don't really want to see a rematch, just because that game is the measuring stick, I look forward to it as soon as the bowl game ends the year before. That being said if Michigan loses and ND wins out. Why should Notre Dame have the right to go if Michigan does not. The second spot in the Fiesta Bowl is bound to be the most hotly contested mess that we have ever seen.

My nightmare scenario

USC loses to Cal/UCLA
USC beats ND
Florida loses to Florida St
Florida beats Arkansas
WVU beats Rutgers
Wisconsin wins out.
Boise State wins out.
Louisville and WVU win out.

Automatic BCS bids
OSU-Michigan winner
Wake Forest/Maryland
WVU/Louisville/Rutgers highest BCS score
Florida/Arkansas
USC/Cal winner
Big Twelve Championship Game Winner
Notre Dame? depends on their BCS ranking along with #of wins
Loser of OSU Michigan Game if they stay in the top 4 of the BCS.

Who then deserves to be in the championship?

Chip R
11-12-2006, 04:09 PM
I don't understand the sentiment against a re-match if OSU and Michigan really are the two best teams.


Who says they are? Most of us on here feel that whatever the result of the game next week, that Michigan and OSU are the two best teams in the country. I think a lot of us has a bias towards these teams because we have been following them all our lives. No possible way a Rutgers or a USC or a Florida could be as good as the number 2 team in the Big 10. And there is absolutely no possible way the Big East is as good as the Big 10. But is it fact or is it bias? Not taking anything away from Michigan and OSU but after those two teams, the Big 10 is pretty mediocre. I think either Michigan or OSU would be in for a game if they played LOU, Rutgers or WVA on the road and vice versa. The problem with the BCS is that it rewards teams who don't lose even if they play in a weak conference. If a team in a strong conference loses a couple of conference games and still wins their conference championship, they are penalized because they played a stronger schedule. Until there is a playoff system, there is going to be years like this where there may be no clear cut national champion.

GAC
11-12-2006, 09:11 PM
Maybe they should just crown the winner of the game next Saturday the national champs and screw the game in January. :lol:

HotCorner
11-12-2006, 09:25 PM
I've always been a proponent of a playoff system but have to admit that if one was in place for this season it would lessen the importance of any remaining game with possible BCS ramifications.

As of today, several teams realistically have a shot at the National Championship game:


OSU
Michigan
Louisville
Rutgers
West Virginia
Texas
USC
California
Florida
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Oklahoma
Notre Dame


It's going to be a fun month of football watching. ;)

Eliminate Texas, Cal, LSU, Oklahoma and Auburn.

Sea Ray ... notice Arkansas in this list? ;)

Spring~Fields
11-12-2006, 09:37 PM
Maybe they should just crown the winner of the game next Saturday the national champs and screw the game in January. :lol:

We will ;) :KoolAid:

Virginia Beach Reds
11-12-2006, 09:58 PM
Like almost everyone has said before, an 8 team playoff is needed.

It will never happen, IMO.

Being a UM fan, I can't see us beating the bucks on Sat. Just too strong and its in Columbus. USC has pulled it together, so I can see an OSU vs. USC game, which would be pretty good because I'd like to see the men from Troy and PETE CARROLL taken behind the woodshed.

Michigan loses they are locked for the Rose and will probably play West Virginia, provided that they beat Rutgers in Morgantown.

Both would be good matchups.

That being said, Arkansas has looked great but I don't think it would be a great matchup with OSU (provided they get by UM) since the Bucks would stop there run game and close the game.

RedsBaron
11-13-2006, 06:38 AM
Maybe they should just crown the winner of the game next Saturday the national champs and screw the game in January. :lol:

That's what I suggested in my post yesterday--match the OSU-UM winner against Duke.;)

RANDY IN INDY
11-13-2006, 06:47 AM
No, the winner of North Carolina/Duke,;)

RedsBaron
11-13-2006, 07:00 AM
No, the winner of North Carolina/Duke,;)

Good point----or maybe the loser of NC-Duke.:)

RANDY IN INDY
11-13-2006, 07:36 AM
Yeah, it really wouldn't matter.

GAC
11-13-2006, 08:34 AM
And here I thought the BCS was gonna have this all figured out so that situations like this wouldn't arrive. :lol:

registerthis
11-13-2006, 09:33 AM
Let me be very clear. I think the winner of the OSU-MI game should go into the BCS championship game ranked #1. I am saying any of those teams that survive without losing another game should be ranked higher than the loser of the OSU-MI game.

So the team that loses to the 31 or #2 team in the nation is inherently worse than other 1 or 2 loss teams?

I dunno...seems quite arbitrary to me. Why not just pick them out of a hat?

registerthis
11-13-2006, 09:37 AM
And here I thought the BCS was gonna have this all figured out so that situations like this wouldn't arrive. :lol:

it just needs a little "tweaking" GAC. ;)

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 10:02 AM
So the team that loses to the 31 or #2 team in the nation is inherently worse than other 1 or 2 loss teams?

I dunno...seems quite arbitrary to me. Why not just pick them out of a hat?

Oh it is very arbitrary. But with all the contenders right now, why should those two teams get two cracks at it while the others are left out in the cold? It's possible that the #2 Big Ten team is #2 in the nation. So what? They had their chance. Give someone else a chance to knock off #1. Kind of like in the NCAA basketball tournament, sometimes it doesn't come down to the #1 and #2 in the finals. Maybe the #2 team was in the same bracket as #1 and played each other before the final.

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 10:04 AM
"If" USC wins out they'll have the best looking resume. They will have beaten ranked teams such as Oregon, ND, Cal, ARK and Neb. No one else can touch that.

registerthis
11-13-2006, 10:40 AM
Oh it is very arbitrary. But with all the contenders right now, why should those two teams get two cracks at it while the others are left out in the cold? It's possible that the #2 Big Ten team is #2 in the nation. So what? They had their chance. Give someone else a chance to knock off #1. Kind of like in the NCAA basketball tournament, sometimes it doesn't come down to the #1 and #2 in the finals. Maybe the #2 team was in the same bracket as #1 and played each other before the final.

I'm not necessarily against letting another team get a crack at it. There probably are at least 3-4 equally deserving teams--and therein lies the problem. Considering that either OSU or UofM is going to end the day on Saturday with at least one loss, what truly is a fair way to determine who the second-best team truly is? You could make compelling arguments for the OSU-UM loser, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, Arkansas, and possibly a couple more. I know the intent of the BCS was to create a situation where the #1 and #2 teams were playing head-to-head for the Title each year, but it's rarely worked out that way, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

KronoRed
11-13-2006, 10:51 AM
it just needs a little "tweaking" GAC. ;)

I know just the type of tweaking
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/images/021011_nuclear.jpg

Danny Serafini
11-13-2006, 10:57 AM
The fact that the BCS computers have Rutgers ahead of Ohio State says everything that needs to be said about the current setup.

registerthis
11-13-2006, 11:11 AM
The fact that the BCS computers have Rutgers ahead of Ohio State says everything that needs to be said about the current setup.

:confused:

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are you seeing Rutgers ranked ahead of OSU?

EDIT: never mind, I see it now. It's that CPU% number.

That's all kinds of screwed up.

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 11:20 AM
Considering that either OSU or UofM is going to end the day on Saturday with at least one loss, what truly is a fair way to determine who the second-best team truly is?...I know the intent of the BCS was to create a situation where the #1 and #2 teams were playing head-to-head for the Title each year, but it's rarely worked out that way, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

There is no truly fair way to boil all these contenders to just two which is why the system stinks. However it is better than the way it was pre-BCS. When conference winners were locked into set Bowls you get idiotic national champions like in the early 80s when BYU won the NC by defeating a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl well before New Year's Day. This system still doesn't give you a true national champion but at least it's not as screwed up as it was.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 11:26 AM
The fact that the BCS computers have Rutgers ahead of Ohio State says everything that needs to be said about the current setup.

Why?

I mean, I hate the computers too - but Rutgers just beat Louisville and is undefeated. OSU's only big game to date is Texas - who just lost to Kansas Freakin State (thier actual name). If OSU beats Michigan this week then the computers will fix itself and OSU will be ahead of Rutgers.

Of course, if Rutgers also beats WVU.......

Puffy
11-13-2006, 11:29 AM
By the way, the reason I hate the computers is the following. Someone still has to rate the teams at the beginning of the year based on his assessment of their team. After that the computer rankings self correct, but still, those initial rankings play a role.

Case in point, in college basketball Sagarin (whom I hate) has Duke number 1. BASED ON WHAT???????? They lost their top two players and didn't end last year number 1, yet Sagarin has them ahead of Florida, UNC and Kansas - all of whom are loaded. Its subjective.

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 11:31 AM
Why?

I mean, I hate the computers too - but Rutgers just beat Louisville and is undefeated. OSU's only big game to date is Texas - who just lost to Kansas Freakin State (thier actual name). If OSU beats Michigan this week then the computers will fix itself and OSU will be ahead of Rutgers.

Of course, if Rutgers also beats WVU.......

Agreed. OSU's "big win" is vs a Texas team that now has 2 losses, one of which was to Kansas Freakin State. That's their only win vs a top 10 team. You can't count the win vs UM yet.

Michigan has wins vs Notre Dame (on the road), ND's only loss and Wisconsin (at home), WISC's only loss.

Rutgers has a win vs Louisville (at home) LOU's only loss.

Like Puffy said, if OSU beats Michigan, they will jump ahead of Rutgers in the computer polls, I believe, even if Rutgers beats WVU.

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 11:37 AM
Agreed. OSU's "big win" is vs a Texas team that now has 2 losses, one of which was to Kansas Freakin State. That's their only win vs a top 10 team. You can't count the win vs UM yet.




Heck, other than Texas, OSU hasn't beaten a top 30 team...

registerthis
11-13-2006, 11:49 AM
By the way, the reason I hate the computers is the following. Someone still has to rate the teams at the beginning of the year based on his assessment of their team. After that the computer rankings self correct, but still, those initial rankings play a role.

Case in point, in college basketball Sagarin (whom I hate) has Duke number 1. BASED ON WHAT???????? They lost their top two players and didn't end last year number 1, yet Sagarin has them ahead of Florida, UNC and Kansas - all of whom are loaded. Its subjective.

Well this goes back to the ultimate reason why polls exist in teh firts place--because of curiosity. They were never meant to be taken seriously. You're exactly right that preseason polls based upon nothing play a role in affecting the outcome of the season (albeit with far less influcence in basketball than in football.) That's why, if the NCAA powers-that-be are insistent upon keeping this ridiculous system in place, at least they could restrict any polls from being released until after the first BCS poll has come out.

LoganBuck
11-13-2006, 12:36 PM
Heck, other than Texas, OSU hasn't beaten a top 30 team...

Yep, they stink. :rolleyes:

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 12:38 PM
Well this goes back to the ultimate reason why polls exist in teh firts place--because of curiosity. They were never meant to be taken seriously. You're exactly right that preseason polls based upon nothing play a role in affecting the outcome of the season (albeit with far less influcence in basketball than in football.) That's why, if the NCAA powers-that-be are insistent upon keeping this ridiculous system in place, at least they could restrict any polls from being released until after the first BCS poll has come out.

I agree.

Notre Dame ranked at number five jumps out at me as having really played no one good, and when they did play that one good team they lost, big, 47-21 but they are ranked #5

I think that all of the teams have several very soft opponents on their schedules which can make them look better than they are, inflating them in stats and records.

The polls change from week to week, pretty much indicating that the polls were incorrect to begin with in their rankings and continue to be wrong right up through this past weekend.

At the bottom checking their competition more closely I did not bother going below the top 19 because most of those have two losses and serious deficiencies.

I know that a seasons scheduling is often done well in advance, but I wish that the NCAA would cause the larger more traditional football powers that usually make up the top 15 to have to schedule at least three traditional football schools outside of their conference vs. being allowed to schedule the lower ranked schools that are not in their conference or league. These schools beat a lot of bad teams, but surprisingly many of them have close calls or near losses to bad teams but yet they are ranked high.


Current Top Ten, Subject to change every week
Ohio State
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/oob/
Has played two teams in the top 19, No close calls in 11 games
Michigan
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/mmk
Has played one team in the top 19 to date, No close calls in 11 games
USC
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/uub
Has played one team in the top 19 to date, 1 loss - unranked team, 2 close calls in 9 games
Florida
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/ffa
Has played three teams in the top 19 to date, 1 loss-ranked team, 3 close calls in 10 games
Notre Dame
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/nnx
Has played 2 teams in the top 19 to date, 1 loss-ranked team 47-21, 1 close call in 10 games
Rutgers
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/rrd
Has played one team in the top 19 to date, 3 close calls in 9 games
Arkansas
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/aan
Has played three teams in the top 19 to date, 1 loss- ranked team 50-14, 3 close calls in 10 games
West Virginia
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/wwh
Has played one team in the top 19 to date, 1 loss-ranked team 44-34, No close calls in 9 games
Wisconsin
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/wwo
Has played one team in the top 19 to date, 1 loss-ranked team 27-13, No close calls in 11 games
Louisville
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/llh
Has played 3 teams in the top 19 to date, 1 loss-ranked team 28-25, 1 close call in 9 games

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 12:51 PM
Current Top Ten, Subject to change every week
Ohio State
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/oob/
Has played two teams in the top 19, No close calls in 11 games
Michigan
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/mmk
Has played one team in the top 19 to date, No close calls in 11 games



The reason I don't like pre-season polls.

Michigan started the season at #14. They moved up to #11 because of their big win over then ranked #2 Notre Dame. They go home and then beat a very good, unranked Wisconsin team and move up to #8. They didn't move up to #2 until several other teams fell out of the top 5 with losses and Michigan continued winning. The first week they were #2 was the 7th week of the season, after the Penn State game.

If you look at the current BCS rankings, Notre Dame is #5 and Wisconsin is #9 with each of their only losses to Michigan. Why doesn't Michigan get credit for beating two top 10 teams instead of just 1? No, Wisconsin was not a top 10 ranked team when Michigan beat them, but whose fault is that? Not Michigans. Also, Michigan gets penalized because Ohio State beat Iowa before Michigan played them? So, Ohio State gets to say they beat a #13 ranked Iowa team, and Michigan gets to say they beat the same team, but it counts as a win vs an unranked team? Seems fair.

I just think pre-season polls are useless. I agree with the poster that said that the first AP poll should not be released until the day of, or the day after, the first BCS poll is released. It seems like the pre-season polls are only released for the television media. Hey, this week we're airing #1 Ohio State vs #2 Texas. Next week, we're airing #2 Notre Dame vs #11 Michigan. Give me a break.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 01:06 PM
Notre Dame ranked at number five jumps out at me as having really played no one good, and when they did play that one good team they lost, big, 47-21 but they are ranked #5



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - this always kills me. Notre Dame hasn't played anyone good for two years now according to the "experts"

First, these games are scheduled years in advance. So lets look at the cupcakes ND scheduled for this year. Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Purdue, Michigan State, UCLA, North Carolina and USC.

Yup, I take it back - clearly ND was seeking to get thru the year by playing patsy's.

Notre Dame is the only major school in the country without a conference and yet they continually go out and play major conference after major conference opponents.

But Charlie Weis had the same record as Ty Willingham after 14 games (not anymore though, huh). Brady Quinn is overrated (29 TDs and 4 INTs - clearly he sucks). ND doesn't play anyone yet is 5 (yup, all other teams have played 7 or 8 bowl eligible teams this year).

Seriously, I should definitely pick a more worthy team as my favorite cause ND just sucks.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 01:09 PM
The reason I don't like pre-season polls.

Michigan started the season at #14. They moved up to #11 because of their big win over then ranked #2 Notre Dame. They go home and then beat a very good, unranked Wisconsin team and move up to #8. They didn't move up to #2 until several other teams fell out of the top 5 with losses and Michigan continued winning. The first week they were #2 was the 7th week of the season, after the Penn State game.

If you look at the current BCS rankings, Notre Dame is #5 and Wisconsin is #9 with each of their only losses to Michigan. Why doesn't Michigan get credit for beating two top 10 teams instead of just 1? No, Wisconsin was not a top 10 ranked team when Michigan beat them, but whose fault is that? Not Michigans. Also, Michigan gets penalized because Ohio State beat Iowa before Michigan played them? So, Ohio State gets to say they beat a #13 ranked Iowa team, and Michigan gets to say they beat the same team, but it counts as a win vs an unranked team? Seems fair.
I just think pre-season polls are useless. I agree with the poster that said that the first AP poll should not be released until the day of, or the day after, the first BCS poll is released. It seems like the pre-season polls are only released for the television media. Hey, this week we're airing #1 Ohio State vs #2 Texas. Next week, we're airing #2 Notre Dame vs #11 Michigan. Give me a break.

The computers correct that, though. You get points all thru the year based on what your opponents do. Thats why you want the teams you beat to win before and after you play them.

Take ND for example - GT wasn't ranked when ND beat them but is 8-1 since. This helps ND. Conversely, Michigan State was 3-0 when ND played them and just outside the top 25. But since ND beat them they are 1-5, so that hurts ND in the computers.

D-Man
11-13-2006, 01:10 PM
There is almost no way the Buckeyes get to the title game without a win against Michigan because the computers will be totally unforgiving with OSU's (relatively) weak schedule. That is a shame, because these schedules are set years in advance, and many pundits thought Ohio State had a tough schedule coming into the season.

USC controls its own destiny. If the team wins out, they will play for the title. The team looks healthy now, and I doubt anyone can beat them at this point.

As for Rutgers: I don't think an undefeated season shouldn't necessarily put them in the title game. I think this year will be one of those exception cases--if USC runs the table and finishes 11-1, they SHOULD be in ahead of Rutgers because of all those quality wins. The computers may be Rutgers' best hope for getting into the title game.

Florida strikes me as one of the weakest teams in the mix. They've escaped with a bunch of ugly wins and near losses against weaker teams (Vandy and S. Carolina). A one-loss Florida team in the title game would be a notably weak choice.

Danny Serafini
11-13-2006, 01:30 PM
Notre Dame is the only major school in the country without a conference and yet they continually go out and play major conference after major conference opponents.

Aren't they playing the Ohio Air National Guard this week? They've played every other service academy they could find.

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 01:39 PM
Aren't they playing the Ohio Air National Guard this week? They've played every other service academy they could find.

Seriously. Think about the problems Notre Dame faces being an independant. They have to find teams that will schedule them as a "non conference game". How many teams do you think want to schedule Notre Dame as a non conference game? So, instead of Ohio State playing Kent State, Bowling Green, Cincinnati, etc one game, they schedule Notre Dame. Same with Michigan. Michigan gives up playing an easy win to schedule Notre Dame. How many teams around the country are willing to schedule a tough opponent out of conference? Probably not a whole lot. 1 loss takes you out of the national championship race. How hard would you kick yourself if your 1 loss was against a non conference opponent that you intentionally scheduled? Sure, ND has to play teams like Air Force, Navy, Army, and some other unranked teams. I think it's mostly because other schools are scheduled for conference play those weeks. ND also almost faced a regular Big 10 schedule this year (UM, MSU, Penn St., Purdue) without playing the "lighweights" of the conference.


And with that, I think it's time for everyone to call their mothers and hug their kids. The apocolypse is close. I have posted that OSU will beat Michigan, and I have defended ND. It's surely over.

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 02:23 PM
Yep, they stink. :rolleyes:

Their schedule sure does

registerthis
11-13-2006, 02:34 PM
The computers correct that, though.

The human polls don't, though. And a sizeable part of the BCS "formula" is the composite of the polls. Ohio State has stayed #1 all season because people at the beginning of the year thought they were the best team. Ok. But what has Michigan done to show that they're NOT the #1 team, aside from not being ranked tehre at the beginning of the year?

I'm not saying that Michigan necessarily IS better than OSU, or vice versa, I'm just using it as an example of the ridiculousness in having polls that affect the outcome of the season that appear before a team has even played a game.

I'd be fine with eliminating the human polling from the BCS altogether, if we're going to use computer algorithms to determine our champion, let's just go all out and use ONLY the computers. Of course, then you just get a scenario like we had in 2003, where the BCS and the polls crown different champions. :explode:

LoganBuck
11-13-2006, 02:35 PM
Their schedule sure does

Because a traditional power conference has a down year doesn't mean the top teams stink. Ohio State and Michigan are known for stepping out of conference and taking on tough teams. Banging on their schedule is barking up the wrong tree. OSU and Michigan will prove it on the field.

OSU goes to Washington next year as a return trip for a game about 4 years ago, and then they play home and home series with USC, Miami, and Oklahoma over the next 8 years. That sure means their schedules stink. Maybe they should schedule Army or Navy to beef it up.

Notre Dame chooses to be independant. The Big East, and the Big Ten have both courted them for years. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for them not being in a conference. The BigTen was very serious about adding ND so that they could set up a SEC type of set up with a Championship game, and divisional play. Notre Dame makes to much money as an independant to join a conference and have to share.

dabvu2498
11-13-2006, 02:38 PM
Their schedule sure does
ND's schedule might not stink as bad as you think it does.

I know everyone hates the computer rankings, but here are the top 20 in Jeff Sagarin's poll (strength of schedule in parenthesis).

College Football 2006 through games of November 11 Saturday
1 Ohio State ( 49)
2 Michigan ( 29)
3 Louisville ( 24)
4 Southern California ( 2)
5 California ( 4)
6 West Virginia ( 54)
7 LSU ( 35)
8 Rutgers ( 66)
9 Florida ( 14)
10 Texas ( 40)
11 Wisconsin ( 60)
12 Notre Dame ( 22)
13 Boise State ( 99)
14 Arkansas ( 81)
15 Tennessee ( 12)
16 Oregon ( 10)
17 Clemson ( 59)
18 Oklahoma ( 33)
19 Virginia Tech ( 68)
20 Boston College ( 41)

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/cfsend.htm

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 02:41 PM
The reason I don't like pre-season polls.

Michigan started the season at #14. They moved up to #11 because of their big win over then ranked #2 Notre Dame. They go home and then beat a very good, unranked Wisconsin team and move up to #8. They didn't move up to #2 until several other teams fell out of the top 5 with losses and Michigan continued winning. The first week they were #2 was the 7th week of the season, after the Penn State game.

If you look at the current BCS rankings, Notre Dame is #5 and Wisconsin is #9 with each of their only losses to Michigan. Why doesn't Michigan get credit for beating two top 10 teams instead of just 1? No, Wisconsin was not a top 10 ranked team when Michigan beat them, but whose fault is that? Not Michigans. Also, Michigan gets penalized because Ohio State beat Iowa before Michigan played them? So, Ohio State gets to say they beat a #13 ranked Iowa team, and Michigan gets to say they beat the same team, but it counts as a win vs an unranked team? Seems fair.

I just think pre-season polls are useless. I agree with the poster that said that the first AP poll should not be released until the day of, or the day after, the first BCS poll is released. It seems like the pre-season polls are only released for the television media. Hey, this week we're airing #1 Ohio State vs #2 Texas. Next week, we're airing #2 Notre Dame vs #11 Michigan. Give me a break.

I agree with all your points.
In addition:
They end up producing a lot of false favorites to which the media loves to hype up when one of the false favorites from the polls loses.

LoganBuck
11-13-2006, 02:42 PM
Bowling Green and Northern Illinois falling in the tank also hurt OSU. Several years ago these looked like decent MAC tune up games.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 03:00 PM
1 loss takes you out of the national championship race.

A team that suffers 1 loss early will not take the same hit in the polls as one that loses late in the polls.

These one loss teams via other teams shuffling throughout the weeks in the polls can climb back in it.

Now if Michigan loses to a number 1 team by three lousy points, basically plays the game even, or vice versa the Michigan team will take a big hit in the late season polls and won't be afforded the chance to get back up, where as the early loss teams do. Something is not right about that late one loss dropping a team down so low in the polls. They are saying that all of a sudden without even ever playing the teams possibly 3-7 all of a sudden became better than number 2 Michigan, can't be.

1 loss is one loss whether at the early part of the season or late part, and it should matter who that loss was against, and neither team should lose much ground if that loss was by a TD or less and against a strong team, because the game really was about even, even if a loss.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:01 PM
Because a traditional power conference has a down year doesn't mean the top teams stink. Ohio State and Michigan are known for stepping out of conference and taking on tough teams. Banging on their schedule is barking up the wrong tree. OSU and Michigan will prove it on the field.

OSU goes to Washington next year as a return trip for a game about 4 years ago, and then they play home and home series with USC, Miami, and Oklahoma over the next 8 years. That sure means their schedules stink. Maybe they should schedule Army or Navy to beef it up.

Notre Dame chooses to be independant. The Big East, and the Big Ten have both courted them for years. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for them not being in a conference. The BigTen was very serious about adding ND so that they could set up a SEC type of set up with a Championship game, and divisional play. Notre Dame makes to much money as an independant to join a conference and have to share.

Dude, no offense - but your whole post makes absolutely no sense.

You start by stating that just because a traditional conference is down doesn't mean the top teams stink. Ok, so OSU and Michigan don't stink because they played in the Big Ten in a year the conference is down. Well, ND played Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue. So its not OSU or Michigan's fault they played in conference in weak year, but ND should be penalized because they scheduled those games (and I bring this up because your Army and Navy comment was clearly a shot at ND).

Then you state how in the coming years OSU has scheduled Washigton, Miami, etc - well, next year Notre Dame plays Michigan, USC, GT, Penn State, Boston College, Purdue, UCLA and Michigan State. Lets see another school schedule those games along with Army, Navy and Air Force. So yes, I give credit to OSU for scheduling Washington next year (who ND has on their schedule in 2008 and 2009) and then USC (again, who ND plays every year), Miami and OKlahoma while you dis ND because of the service academies. Makes sense.

And ND doesn't need a conference - they play a tough schedule regardless. And they'll continue to because thats what NBC pays them for. But your shots at ND make no sense. And I wasn't the one dissing your schedule, so you took a shot at ND has nothing to do with Sea Ray questioning your lack of a strong schedule.

Hoosier Red
11-13-2006, 03:03 PM
Puffy, the difference is the computers have no qualms about dropping teams that are not as impressive as once thought.

For instance Michigan beats Notre Dame(who was ranked #2)
Michigan vaults up based on the impressive win.

Let's say Notre Dame loses next week at Michigan State.
Michigan would drop as well because their win was not nearly as impressive.

Human polls have more of an issue with this.

It's also two different motivations.
Human polls reflect which team the writers believe to be the best.
Computer (pollls) reflect the team that has proven itself to be the best. Ie. Rutgers.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:06 PM
Puffy, the difference is the computers have no qualms about dropping teams that are not as impressive as once thought.

For instance Michigan beats Notre Dame(who was ranked #2)
Michigan vaults up based on the impressive win.

Let's say Notre Dame loses next week at Michigan State.
Michigan would drop as well because their win was not nearly as impressive.

Human polls have more of an issue with this.

It's also two different motivations.
Human polls reflect which team the writers believe to be the best.
Computer (pollls) reflect the team that has proven itself to be the best. Ie. Rutgers.

Thats what I had stated - its self correcting was the phrase I used.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 03:08 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - this always kills me. Notre Dame hasn't played anyone good for two years now according to the "experts"



Sure Notre Dame played someone good last year during the regular season and in the bowl game, what was that outcome of that regular season game and the bowl game? ;) Do you remember who they played in the bowl game? ;)

Notre Dame played someone very good this year, what was the outcome?

Hint: One is a Trojan and another is a worthless nut

Last year they played two very good teams the results of playing it on the field were
Southern Cal 34 Notre Dame 31
Ohio State 34 Notre Dame 20
Michigan St 44 Notre Dame 41

This year they have played one and lost
Michigan 41 Notre Dame 21

2004 they lost 6 games, I won’t mention that though, even though I can see why they prefer their current schedule.

Probably kills you more that when they do face the good teams they lose. :D

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:31 PM
Sure Notre Dame played someone good last year during the regular season and in the bowl game, what was that outcome of that regular season game and the bowl game? ;) Do you remember who they played in the bowl game? ;)

Notre Dame played someone very good this year, what was the outcome?

Hint: One is a Trojan and another is a worthless nut

Last year they played two very good teams the results of playing it on the field were
Southern Cal 34 Notre Dame 31
Ohio State 34 Notre Dame 20
Michigan St 44 Notre Dame 41

This year they have played one and lost
Michigan 41 Notre Dame 21

2004 they lost 6 games, I wonít mention that though, even though I can see why they prefer their current schedule.

Probably kills you more that when they do face the good teams they lose. :D

This is absolutely perfect - anyone who beats ND is a good team, and anyone who ND beats must not have been that good. Thank you for that.

Michigan sucked last year. Tennessee too. Georgia Tech this year. And Penn State. The fact that ND's schedule is ranked higher by every computer over Ohio States means nothing. Notre Dame beat them so they suck.

And people wonder why Ohio State fans are considered tools almost universally.;)

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 03:40 PM
Yes, we've gotten to the whole point of every OSU fans' dreams.

ND sucks. When they play truly "good" teams, they lay an egg and get blown out. When they win the rest of the games on their schedule, they are wins against average opponents that anyone could beat. The same can be said about Michigan. Maybe in the coming years we can add Washington and Miami.

Brilliant!

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 03:41 PM
And people wonder why Ohio State fans are considered tools almost universally.;)
:laugh:

I haven't used the word suck :)

North Carolina - 1-9
Michigan State - 4-7
Air Force - 4-5
UCLA - 5-5
Navy - 7-3
Purdue - 7-4
Penn State - 7-4
Georgia Tech - 8-2
Michigan - 11-0

USC - I will love Notre Dame when they beat USC and will be rooting for them.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:45 PM
:laugh:

I haven't used the word suck :)

North Carolina - 1-9
Michigan State - 4-7
Air Force - 4-5
UCLA - 5-5
Navy - 7-3
Purdue - 7-4
Penn State - 7-4
Georgia Tech - 8-2
Michigan - 11-0

USC - I will love Notre Dame when they beat USC and will be rooting for them.

Thank you - what you just posted establishes that 6 teams ND played will be going to bowls. And possibly 7 if UCLA gets another win or two.

dabvu2498
11-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Thank you - what you just posted establishes that 6 teams ND played will be going to bowls. And possibly 7 if UCLA gets another win or two.

One other thing... having seen AFA play in person, I can say that I would not wanted to have played them anytime, anywhere. that's a pretty good 4-5 team from a mid-level conference.

I can empathize with RL... defending ND feels dirty.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Thank you - what you just posted establishes that 6 teams ND played will be going to bowls. And possibly 7 if UCLA gets another win or two.

You're welcome, sorry I could not have been of more help! I really was rooting for ND against USC last year, and against USC and Michigan this year, what more can I do ;)

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:51 PM
Ohio State

Illinois 2-9
Northwestern 3-8
MSU 4-7
Bowling Green 4-6
Indiana 5-6
Minnesota 5-6
Northern Illinois 5-5
Cincinnati 5-5
Iowa 6-5
Penn State 7-4
Texas 9-2

Much more impressive than Notre Dame's, eh?

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:53 PM
Oh, again - I'm not comparing Ohio State and Notre Dame. OSU is clearly number 1 right now and ND belongs around 5 or 6.

Just the schedules, thats all I'm comparing.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 03:57 PM
Ohio State


#2 Texas 9-2

Much more impressive than Notre Dame's, eh?

We will have to wait and see how it all plays out.

If it ends up
#2 Texas 9-2
#2 Michigan 11-1

I guess I will just have to accept that it was.

Puffy
11-13-2006, 03:59 PM
We will have to wait and see how it all plays out.

If it ends up
#2 Texas 9-2
#2 Michigan 11-1

I guess I will just have to accept that it was.

Yeah, but you'd have to add USC to Notre Dame's list. So ND would look:

USC 10-2
Michigan 12-0

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 04:00 PM
We will have to wait and see how it all plays out.

If it ends up
#2 Texas 9-2
#1 Michigan 12-0

I guess I will just have to accept that it was.

Well, then, you'll just have to include ND's:

#4 USC 8-1

to make it a little more even again.

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 04:02 PM
*shudder*

I'm even thinking like a ND fan now.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 04:04 PM
HELP HELP HELP DIAL 911

I am getting mugged on the BCS thread by the Michigan and Notre Dame fans...........I am innocent I swear :evil:

:help:

gonelong
11-13-2006, 04:05 PM
HELP HELP HELP DIAL 911

I am getting mugged on the BCS thread by the Michigan and Notre Dame fans...........I am innocent I swear :evil:

:help:

Dude, when you wander into "that" part of town you get what you deserve. ;)

GL

traderumor
11-13-2006, 04:29 PM
I would love to play ND in the NC game. It would be great to see tOSU abuse Quinn two years in a row and help ensure that he does not see his name come up early in the draft. And what this offense would do to the ND defense one year later? As Dick Enberg would say, OH MY!

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 04:32 PM
I would love to play ND in the NC game. It would be great to see tOSU abuse Quinn two years in a row and help ensure that he does not see his name come up early in the draft. And what this offense would do to the ND defense one year later? As Dick Enberg would say, OH MY!

Puffy wasn't arguing that he thinks ND is a better team than OSU. In fact, he clearly stated that OSU was the undisputed #1 team in the nation right now. All he was arguing was the schedule strength.

Typical OSU fans. You challenge anything about their team and prepare to enter virtual warfare. It's sad, really. I'd love to meet an OSU fan that you could have an intelligent discussion with. I live in Ohio. I'm now 34 years old. I'm still waiting.

registerthis
11-13-2006, 04:43 PM
Typical OSU fans. You challenge anything about their team and prepare to enter virtual warfare. It's sad, really.

Don't want to speak for TR, but his post didn't look to be a direct response to Puffy--he only said he'd enjoy watching the Buckeyes place a beat-down on the Irish again. As would I.

A bit overly-sensitive, perhaps? :)

Red Leader
11-13-2006, 04:55 PM
Oh ok. That's fine. Since Puffy had been talking about Notre Dame, I had assumed that tr was responding to Puffy. My bad.

Since we're not just talking, I'd love for Michigan to throttle Ohio State on Saturday and then would love for Notre Dame to kick the crap out of Ohio State in a bowl game.

Something tells me that's a pretty tall request however.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 07:11 PM
I would love to play ND in the NC game. It would be great to see tOSU abuse Quinn two years in a row and help ensure that he does not see his name come up early in the draft. And what this offense would do to the ND defense one year later? As Dick Enberg would say, OH MY!

Here is an article that I just discovered that explains a position regarding the match up.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AhlCuZpoYnci7upWqL4zcQUcvrYF?slug=ga-pointafter111206&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Here is an article that has the opposing opinion

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/9800283

GAC
11-13-2006, 08:25 PM
I've come to find this thread amusing.

Diehard fans vehemently defending their respective schools.... and rightly so.

Strength of schedule makes up how much of the "formula" (or equation) that the BCS uses? We seem to be over emphasizing one aspect by ignoring the others. ;)

I know there is one thing we can all agree on....

The BCS Sucks

http://www.bcs-sucks.com/images/nobcs3.gif

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 09:08 PM
Because a traditional power conference has a down year doesn't mean the top teams stink. Ohio State and Michigan are known for stepping out of conference and taking on tough teams. Banging on their schedule is barking up the wrong tree. OSU and Michigan will prove it on the field.



Once again I'm not saying the team stinks. I would vote them #1 myself right now. My point about the sorry schedule is that for that reason it is difficult to judge how good OSU really is. I can't glean much from watching them play BG, UC, IND, Minn, N Ill or NW.

We could begin a new thread talking about scheduling so I'll keep my comment brief. The Big Ten has no championship game and now teams are scheduling 12 games a year. Why can't the Big Ten schedule all their teams to play each other? It sure would have been nice to see OSU and WI face off this year. A few years back NW made it to the Rose Bowl because that year they did not have to face OSU. I think that was a sham.

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 09:17 PM
A team that suffers 1 loss early will not take the same hit in the polls as one that loses late in the polls.

These one loss teams via other teams shuffling throughout the weeks in the polls can climb back in it.


1 loss is one loss whether at the early part of the season or late part, and it should matter who that loss was against, and neither team should lose much ground if that loss was by a TD or less and against a strong team, because the game really was about even, even if a loss.

I have no problem with an emphasis on "what have you done lately." Recent performance is also taken into consideration when the selection committee picks March Madness brackets. The truth is teams evolve. Young players, especially QBs, gain experience, injuries happen, whatever. I think an early loss should not be emphasized as much as a late loss, but maybe I'm in the minority on this...

Sea Ray
11-13-2006, 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Their schedule sure does

DABVU 2498:
ND's schedule might not stink as bad as you think it does.

My comment was about OSU's schedule and those ratings confirm my opinion

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 10:17 PM
I have no problem with an emphasis on "what have you done lately." Recent performance is also taken into consideration when the selection committee picks March Madness brackets. The truth is teams evolve. Young players, especially QBs, gain experience, injuries happen, whatever. I think an early loss should not be emphasized as much as a late loss, but maybe I'm in the minority on this...

You're right, teams do improve and progress throughout the season and that has to be accounted for.

The farther that I have ventured into this thread and read with interest what each of you have written and expressed, I am more sold on a solid well thought out playoff system. I just don't see how the "powers that be" could address the situation fair and accurately without one.

Several teams still have two to three games left and I have a feeling, of course we won't know until it is all played out, that this could be the year that really compels them to move to a better method.

Sea Ray, I have appreciated your comments throughout.

Spring~Fields
11-13-2006, 10:27 PM
I've come to find this thread amusing.

Diehard fans vehemently defending their respective schools.... and rightly so.



God knows that we all try on both counts.

The more that I read everyone on the thread the more I researched and followed up. I found myself agreeing with a lot that they all were pointing out. I may not grasp all of the dynamics involved in the BCS, but it has some real holes when it comes to integrity and credibility in selecting the NC.

Integrity and credibility first, trumps even Ohio State winning it in my opin.

registerthis
11-14-2006, 09:13 AM
Integrity and credibility first, trumps even Ohio State winning it in my opin.

Absolutely. As an OSU fan and alum, I would happily give up a BCS "championship" for an opportunity to be the first Division 1-A team to win a playoff.

Gainesville Red
11-14-2006, 10:20 AM
You're right, teams do improve and progress throughout the season and that has to be accounted for.


This is the reason that there's a rematch I'd like to see.

I'd like to see Arkansas get another crack at USC. (Not saying there's any chance of seeing these two in the NC game, just saying I'd like to see em go at it again.)

I've been watching a lot of them (ARK) over the last 3 or 4 weeks thinking Florida's going to have to play them.

They're no joke. I don't want any piece of them.

paintmered
11-19-2006, 03:29 PM
The new BCS standings are to be released shortly.

Spring~Fields
11-19-2006, 03:35 PM
This really belongs on this thread as it is a part of the earlier discussion that paintmered had already started.


USA Today Poll

1. Ohio State (63)

2. USC

3. Michigan

4. Florida

5. Arkansas

6. Notre Dame

7. West Virginia

8. LSU

9. Wisconsin

10. Texas

AP Poll

1. Ohio State (65)

2. Michigan

3. USC

4. Florida

5. Arkansas

6. Notre Dame

7. West Virginia

8. Louisville

9. LSU

10. Wisconsin

Harris Interactive

1. Ohio State (114)

2. USC

3. Michigan

4. Florida

5. Notre Dame

6. Arkansas

7. West Virginia

8. LSU

9. Wisconsin

10. Louisville

Bowl Champ. Series

1. Ohio State

2. Michigan

3. USC

4. Florida

5. Notre Dame

6. Arkansas

7. West Virginia

8. Wisconsin

9. Louisville

10. LSU



As many were concerned or voiced concerns regarding the polls and especially the BCS attempt to determine the NC it appears that many were correct. Still several games to be played though.

Reds Fanatic
11-19-2006, 04:28 PM
BCS standings are out. Michigan is still number 2. USC is 3 but is only .08 points behind Michigan. If USC beats Notre Dame there is good chance they would move ahead of Michigan.

Puffy
11-19-2006, 04:38 PM
BCS standings are out. Michigan is still number 2. USC is 3 but is only .08 points behind Michigan. If USC beats Notre Dame there is good chance they would move ahead of Michigan.

If USC beats ND and UCLA there is no doubt they jump over Michigan seeing as how Michigan's regular season is over

paintmered
11-19-2006, 04:43 PM
Here's a link to the full standings (.pdf)

http://msn.foxsports.com/id/6188772_37_1.pdf

Puffy, I agree with you. If USC wins out, there's no doubt they jump over Michigan.

Spring~Fields
11-19-2006, 04:56 PM
If USC beats ND and UCLA there is no doubt they jump over Michigan seeing as how Michigan's regular season is over

I agree with you also Puffy, but is that fair to Florida or Arkansas if one of them wins out?

traderumor
11-19-2006, 05:11 PM
I've been giving a repeated statement some thought, and it seems like some logic has been used in the ranking of Michigan. I have said it, probably not any more, but it is said all the time that a flaw of the BCS system is a late season loss can knock a team out and gives teams that lost a game earlier in the year a better chance to recover their place in the standings.

After further review, there is indisputable evidence that this has no logical basis. A team that loses one game at the end of the year has still only lost one game and is evaluated accordingly. When they lost the game really is not important, but WHO they lost to and who they beat are the critical factors. Yet, you will hear it said many times if UM drops after all the games are played that they made the mistake of losing late in the season, so they were penalized. Yet, I would contend that if they finish #3 behind USC, it is because they both beat common opponents (ND) but USC played a little bit tougher overall schedule. UM's only feather in its one loss cap is that it played the undisputed #1 team to a field goal loss on the road.

max venable
11-19-2006, 05:15 PM
Hey, bring on the wolverines...again. It would be a sincere pleasure to beat tsun twice in one season.

I don't think U-M would get as close this time here's why:

OSU is likely to force more turnovers (they've done it all year long...somehow they didn't againt U-M...it's unlikely they'd be kept from forcing TOs in consecutive games. Also, two unforced turnovers. HIGHLY irregular of the OSU offense. U-M deserves absolutely no credit for forcing those...can't see OSU doing that again. Also...Tressel just flat-out owns Lloyd Carr. He'll out-coach him once again...JT knows how to win big games...he always has his team ready to win a bowl. Even though the score was close yesterday (and I do give U-M credit for keeping it close, U-M was out-classed by OSU. I don't see the offense skipping a beat in the rematch (too many weapons) and I also see JT making great adjustments defensively to hold U-M to fewer points. The same could be said about LC and his team...but JT has proven time and time again that he's a phenominal prepartion and adjustment coach.

So...I say...bring 'em on. :thumbup:

traderumor
11-19-2006, 05:16 PM
Hey, bring on the wolverines...again. It would be a sincere pleasure to beat tsun twice in one season.

I don't think U-M would get as close this time here's why:

OSU is likely to force more turnovers (they've done it all year long...somehow they didn't againt U-M...it's unlikely they'd be kept from forcing TOs in consecutive games. Also, two unforced turnovers. HIGHLY irregular of the OSU offense. U-M deserves absolutely no credit for forcing those...can't see OSU doing that again. Also...Tressel just flat-out owns Lloyd Carr. He'll out-coach him once again...JT knows how to win big games...he always has his team ready to win a bowl. Even though the score was close yesterday (and I do give U-M credit for keeping it close, U-M was out-classed by OSU. I don't see the offense skipping a beat in the rematch (too many weapons) and I also see JT making great adjustments defensively to hold U-M to fewer points. The same could be said about LC and his team...but JT has proven time and time again that he's a phenominal prepartion and adjustment coach.

So...I say...bring 'em on. :thumbup:
Did you say the same thing when the Fab Five knocked us out in the Regional Finals after beating them twice during the season?:evil:

max venable
11-19-2006, 05:17 PM
Did you say the same thing when the Fab Five knocked us out in the Regional Finals after beating them twice during the season?:evil:

uh...no. But that sure did suck, didn't it?

I blame Randy Ayers for that one. And Jim Tressel is no Randy Ayers. ;)

HotCorner
11-19-2006, 10:08 PM
I agree with you also Puffy, but is that fair to Florida or Arkansas if one of them wins out?

If Arkansas wins out, I would have to believe it would move up significantly because of their possible wins over LSU and Florida which are both BCS Top 10. However I'm not sure if it would be enough to jump past USC should they win out.

GAC
11-20-2006, 08:13 AM
If USC wins out, they're in. This gets back to the "human element" in the BCS system. USC are their "darlins'".

If ND beats USC, who comes down to the winner of the SEC game - Arkansas vs Florida.

max venable
11-20-2006, 08:36 AM
If USC wins out, they're in. This gets back to the "human element" in the BCS system. USC are their "darlins'".

If ND beats USC, who comes down to the winner of the SEC game - Arkansas vs Florida.

But at the same time, do they "deserve it more" than a U-M team that lost only once, by only three points, on the road, to the number one team in the nation?

savafan
11-20-2006, 09:17 AM
But at the same time, do they "deserve it more" than a U-M team that lost only once, by only three points, on the road, to the number one team in the nation?

I say no. I think you'd have to give the nod to Michigan.

registerthis
11-20-2006, 09:24 AM
I say no. I think you'd have to give the nod to Michigan.

I would *personally* rather see USC or one of the SEC teams than Michigan again. But it's difficult to make the argument that the team that lost only once (to the best team in the nation) and who whalloped another one-loss team still considered to be among the NC contenders (Notre Dame) is any less deserving.

Why don't they just consider last week's game to be the Title game and just forget all of this BCS foolishness?

GAC
11-20-2006, 09:41 AM
But at the same time, do they "deserve it more" than a U-M team that lost only once, by only three points, on the road, to the number one team in the nation?

It's not about "deserve it more". That is a really subjective argument. The BCS system doesn't have a "deserve it more" ranking column. ;)

Why does Michigan "desevere" it any more then the other two aforementioned teams when Michigan has played the #1 team and lost?

If I was USC, Florida, or Arkansas, I'd be a little miffed if I win out, are my respective conference champs, and get left out of the game when Michigan already lost to the #1 team.

But IMHO, the BCS is just not going to allow a OSU-Michigan rematch in the NC game.

it's going to end up being one of the 3 above mentioned teams. All ND can do is spoil USC's bid. In that case, it would be either Florida or Arkansas.

And this again gets back to the "losing early is far less harmful then losing late."

When a team loses very early, and then runs the rest of the season, then the argument can be made that it's not the same team that started out the season. That is usually the logic that is utilized.

And that logic could also be applied to ND. They aren't the same team of earlier in the year. But even if they win at USC, I just don't see them vaulting over the SEC winner when those teams are already ranked higher in the BCS.

GAC
11-20-2006, 09:42 AM
Why don't they just consider last week's game to be the Title game and just forget all of this BCS foolishness?

Your degree obviously isn't in marketing. ;)

It's all about $$$$$$$$$ going to those respective schools, conferences, advertisers, etc. etc.

You're talking about a BIG chunk of change here.

NJReds
11-20-2006, 10:14 AM
If USC wins out, they're in. This gets back to the "human element" in the BCS system. USC are their "darlins'".

If ND beats USC, who comes down to the winner of the SEC game - Arkansas vs Florida.

I always thought ND was the media darling. That said, ND's defense has no chance of slowing down OSU.

If USC wins out, they merit consideration based on strength of schedule over most other contenders (except possibly Florida if they win the SEC Championship.)

USC beat Arkasas 50-14 (on Arkansas home field, I beleive) so if they both win out it's tough to make an arguement for AK over USC.

registerthis
11-20-2006, 10:16 AM
Your degree obviously isn't in marketing. ;)

Unfortunately, it is. Says so right on my wall!

registerthis
11-20-2006, 10:19 AM
It's all about $$$$$$$$$ going to those respective schools, conferences, advertisers, etc. etc.

You're talking about a BIG chunk of change here.

Yeah, I know, my comment was made tongue-in-cheek. But, really, how could an OSU-Michigan redux carry any more weight (or hype) than Saturday's game? A rematch against Michigan would seem almost anti-climatic at this point, to me at least. If Michigan ends up being the team we have to defeat to win the "championship", well, what did we just do last Saturday?

Red Leader
11-20-2006, 10:28 AM
Yeah, I know, my comment was made tongue-in-cheek. But, really, how could an OSU-Michigan redux carry any more weight (or hype) than Saturday's game? A rematch against Michigan would seem almost anti-climatic at this point, to me at least. If Michigan ends up being the team we have to defeat to win the "championship", well, what did we just do last Saturday?


You beat the #2 team in the nation on your home field. Winning the National Championship is beating the #2 team in the nation on a neutral field. Big difference? Probably not, but it does take away some of the advantage, IMO, and the advantage was only 3 points on Saturday.

Say what you want about either OSU or Michigan, but those teams are fairly evenly matched. Ohio State had a huge advantage in 4-5 wide sets. They spread Michigan's defense out, which took away Michigan's strength on defense--crowding it up and taking away the run. If Michigan gets 50 days to game plan against that, I'm sure they'll be much better against it. On the flip side, Michigan didn't do anything really suprising on offense, other than not running all of the time and eating the clock. Michigan's advantage on offense was running the ball. I still haven't figured out why they didn't run more in the 1st half to keep OSU's offense off the field. In a rematch, I would guess you'd see more Mike Hart with a better mixture of play action passing mixed in. That's not something "new" Ohio State can prepare for. That's basically what they prepared for last week and they didn't have a ton of success stopping it.

Don't get me wrong, OSU's offense is incredible and I have a hard time seeing anyone keep them down for long. It's a pick your poison thing. I just don't think USC matches up as well as Michigan against OSU.

From everything I've read, the only options from here are either USC or UM in the championship game. If USC wins out, they're in. If they lose, Michigan's in. Everyone else is on the outside looking in, the reason being that if USC loses, Michigan will pick up more points by moving up in the coaches poll (back to #2 in some that they are now #3), cementing the #2 spot and giving them a berth in the National Championship game.

max venable
11-20-2006, 11:23 AM
They are fairly evenly matched. Ohio State kept shooting themselves in the foot with unforced turnovers and bone-headed penalties. Even so, OSU had an 11 point lead with 3 minutes to go. U-M scored a desperation TD (aided by one of those penalties)...had to go for two and then hope for...any way you see my point...

I do think that they are the 2nd best team in the nation...BUT...they didn't win their conference...and they lost their last game...bottom line: they had their shot at OSU and they came up short. They made a good run...and came up short. Honestly...that was, IMO, as good a run as they could possibly make, too. They wouldn't get as close in a rematch. That said, I would gladly play them again...I mean, how sweet would it be to beat U-M twice in the same season? Once to win the Big Ten title outright, and the second time to win the NC? Really, as an OSU fan, could it get any better?

registerthis
11-20-2006, 11:41 AM
That said, I would gladly play them again...I mean, how sweet would it be to beat U-M twice in the same season? Once to win the Big Ten title outright, and the second time to win the NC? Really, as an OSU fan, could it get any better?

I'd rather see OSU play someone else, personally. As much as I enjoyed the UofM game, my feelings at this point are "been there, done that." I'd rather see the Bucks play a USC, Florida or Arkansas than I would see them play UofM again.

GAC
11-20-2006, 12:09 PM
Unfortunately, it is. Says so right on my wall!

It's not in Crayola is it? :evil:

But I agree that I'd rather see OSU play someone else.

But the other side of me also would love to see them play Michigan again.

Getting to kick their butts twice in one year is like the having sex with the wife twice in one night.... and she's still awake!

savafan
11-20-2006, 12:20 PM
Getting to kick their butts twice in one year is like the having sex with the wife twice in one night.... and she's still awake!

Wow, that's the best thing I've ever heard!

I wonder if Michigan had won Saturday, would we all be feeling the same way that someone other than tOSU should play UofM in the title game...

Red Leader
11-20-2006, 12:35 PM
I wonder if Michigan had won Saturday, would we all be feeling the same way that someone other than tOSU should play UofM in the title game...

I know your statement here is directed more at OSU fans, but if Michigan somehow would have pulled a victory out (under the same circumstances) I, as a UM fan, couldn't see facing any other team besides OSU in the championship. Having said that, I under-estimated OSU's offense going in. I really didn't think they had been truly battle tested against a really good defense this year, and I thought they'd be vulnerable against a good defense. I still say that UM has a good defense, they were still just too much for Michigan's D. Playing a zone defense the whole first half didn't help them out much. That, I still say, was stupid coaching on UM's behalf. You *have* to show Troy Smith multiple looks. You give him the same read on every play and he'll kill you. And that wasn't Lloyd Carr's fault--for those of you who like to bash on him, that was Ron English, the Def. Coordinator, making that call.

Spring~Fields
11-20-2006, 01:01 PM
It's not about "deserve it more". That is a really subjective argument. The BCS system doesn't have a "deserve it more" ranking column. ;)

Why does Michigan "desevere" it any more then the other two aforementioned teams when Michigan has played the #1 team and lost?

If I was USC, Florida, or Arkansas, I'd be a little miffed if I win out, are my respective conference champs, and get left out of the game when Michigan already lost to the #1 team.

But IMHO, the BCS is just not going to allow a OSU-Michigan rematch in the NC game.

it's going to end up being one of the 3 above mentioned teams. All ND can do is spoil USC's bid. In that case, it would be either Florida or Arkansas.

And this again gets back to the "losing early is far less harmful then losing late."

When a team loses very early, and then runs the rest of the season, then the argument can be made that it's not the same team that started out the season. That is usually the logic that is utilized.

And that logic could also be applied to ND. They aren't the same team of earlier in the year. But even if they win at USC, I just don't see them vaulting over the SEC winner when those teams are already ranked higher in the BCS.

Personally I think that the "championship game" is over, and that was the Big Ten Championship game between the number one and number two teams in the country, that game somehow has devalued the BSC National Championship game , it is now a glorified bowl game for the $$$$ that is yet to come in 50 days. In a 50 day layoff anything could happen to what was Ohio States team. Example:Smith could get hurt in a practice, Ohio State simply would not be the same team as they are today, other things come to play that could be unforseen in 50 days.

I am still reading everyone here, and I still am seeing arguments that are inadvertently supporting a future playoff system vs. having the BCS, the BCS might be good to determine who the playoff teams should be, but so many have already shown why a playoff is needed.

In a way a playoff is going to occur with the current top 6 teams.
USC will play Notre Dame,
Arkansas will play Florida,
Ohio State-Michigan is already in the books,
now if we could just get the winner of USC/Notre Dame to face the winner of Ark-FLA
and the winner of the last play Ohio State.

My guess would be USC would end up winning and they stand the best chance of beating Ohio State IMHO

traderumor
11-20-2006, 01:18 PM
And that wasn't Lloyd Carr's fault--for those of you who like to bash on him, that was Ron English, the Def. Coordinator, making that call.Which I think is just delicious having heard all the hype about his genius for the D's play this year. My prediction was that they would be unable to cover our receivers or catch Troy. He did not find a way to do either. I just wonder if a rematch wouldn't be another trip to the Acme online store looking for a gadget to catch the roadrunner.

Red Leader
11-20-2006, 01:28 PM
Which I think is just delicious having heard all the hype about his genius for the D's play this year. My prediction was that they would be unable to cover our receivers or catch Troy. He did not find a way to do either. I just wonder if a rematch wouldn't be another trip to the Acme online store looking for a gadget to catch the roadrunner.

And you know what, I can't argue that. It very well could be. But, it could be that way for every other team in the nation as well. Not many college teams have the personnel to cover 4, 5, or 6 receivers for a whole game.

They did play a little better in the 2nd half after they broke out of the zone coverage they stayed in the whole first half (that killed them). Like others have said, Ohio States defense didn't play too great, either.

The way I see it though, this game didn't say to me that Michigan's defense was awful (although I personally think they played a very bad game defensively...much worse than I would have expected). It said to me that Ohio State has a very, very good offense. It wasn't Michigan D = terrible, OSU O = good. It was Michigan D = unprepared, exposed, and stretched out, OSU O = one of the best of all time and definitely the deepest offense I can remember in my life. Not many teams have the talent and depth to go 5 wide and have 5 true options to throw to. How the hell do you defend that? :dunno: The obvious answer to me sure the hell isn't: by sitting back in a zone coverage. :laugh:

Spring~Fields
11-20-2006, 01:36 PM
Which I think is just delicious having heard all the hype about his genius for the D's play this year. My prediction was that they would be unable to cover our receivers or catch Troy. He did not find a way to do either.

One might say that he did find a way to cover them, unfortunately for him it left a big hole for Wells and Pitman and touchdowns..

The Wells jog to the goaline led to set up a sweet fake to Wells and a pass that went for an easy touchdown.

Sea Ray
11-20-2006, 03:37 PM
But at the same time, do they "deserve it more" than a U-M team that lost only once, by only three points, on the road, to the number one team in the nation?


I would say they do. If USC wins out they will have beaten the likes of ND, ARK, CAL, Oregon, and Nebraska. That's more impressive than Michigan beating ND and Wisconsin.

Outside of the Big Ten, teams often have to win twice in order to go to the BCS championship game. A few years ago Tennessee was set to go to the Rose Bowl (who had the NC that year) but lost to LSU in the SEC Championship game even though they had beaten the Tigers earlier in the year. I don't think this is right but just another quirk in the system.

Sea Ray
11-20-2006, 03:42 PM
The way I see it though, this game didn't say to me that Michigan's defense was awful (although I personally think they played a very bad game defensively...much worse than I would have expected). It said to me that Ohio State has a very, very good offense. It wasn't Michigan D = terrible, OSU O = good. It was Michigan D = unprepared, exposed, and stretched out, OSU O = one of the best of all time and definitely the deepest offense I can remember in my life. Not many teams have the talent and depth to go 5 wide and have 5 true options to throw to. How the hell do you defend that? :dunno: The obvious answer to me sure the hell isn't: by sitting back in a zone coverage. :laugh:


I think OSU's offense executed beautifully as well. As for how to stop them I'd like to see the speed rushers and DBs of the SEC take a whack at 'em. They're used to those 5 wide sets from the likes of SC, Tenn and FL.

Puffy
11-20-2006, 03:48 PM
I would say they do. If USC wins out they will have beaten the likes of ND, ARK, CAL, Oregon, and Nebraska. That's more impressive than Michigan beating ND and Wisconsin.

Outside of the Big Ten, teams often have to win twice in order to go to the BCS championship game. A few years ago Tennessee was set to go to the Rose Bowl (who had the NC that year) but lost to LSU in the SEC Championship game even though they had beaten the Tigers earlier in the year. I don't think this is right but just another quirk in the system.


Ya know, thats a great point. 9 times out of ten in these conference championships one team has to play a team they already beat - why should the National Championship be any different if those are the two best teams.

Also, I wonder how many of you OSU fans would be spouting the same things if it was Michigan who won. I know some would still say "they had their chance" even though it was your team that lost, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the lions share would be singing a different tune entirely.

Red Leader
11-20-2006, 03:56 PM
Ya know, thats a great point. 9 times out of ten in these conference championships one team has to play a team they already beat - why should the National Championship be any different if those are the two best teams.

Also, I wonder how many of you OSU fans would be spouting the same things if it was Michigan who won. I know some would still say "they had their chance" even though it was your team that lost, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the lions share would be singing a different tune entirely.


I would bet the majority of Ohio St fans would be in the same position I sit in today. Disappointed by the loss on Nov. 18th, knowing your team, who you had watched play 11 games before, could play much better and make it a closer game. Even if I was an Ohio State fan, and Michigan had won, I'd be calling for a rematch, because I truly do believe that those two are the best two teams in the nation. I think it's only right that they'd get to play again on a neutral field. The chance that Michigan wins the 2nd time around? I'd probably say: 50-60%. Most of that is because I truly feel that they have a very, very good team, much better than they showed defensively on Saturday, and they'd be able to game plan better having played them once. The chance I'd give anyone else in the country playing OSU for the first time? About 30-40%, tops.

Now, that's not saying that OSU wouldn't make adjustments and Michigan would face the same things they did Saturday...I doubt that happens, but going 4 and 5 wide is a huge advantage for OSU. I doubt they'd go away from it much. I think they know that if they were to go in a regular single back set with two TE's, Michigan would have a much easier time defending it.

max venable
11-20-2006, 04:31 PM
the more i think about it...the less i think a rematch makes sense. U-M had their shot at OSU. Let somebody else have a shot now. You wanna play in the NC game? Win your conference.

registerthis
11-20-2006, 04:41 PM
Also, I wonder how many of you OSU fans would be spouting the same things if it was Michigan who won. I know some would still say "they had their chance" even though it was your team that lost, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the lions share would be singing a different tune entirely.

That's really an moot question, because it stands to reason that the loser of the OSU - UofM game would want very much to be included in the National Championship game, particularly if the game was close (as this one was.) And I said in an earlier post that I thought Michigan had done nothing to disprove their rating as the #2 team in the country, and I couldn't argue with the selection if OSu ended up playing them again.

My argument stems from a desire merely to see OSU play someone new. Since we've already accomplished the goal of getting to the title game, whoever the opponent is will be deserving. Of those deserving teams, I would simply like to see someone other than a team we've already played.

registerthis
11-20-2006, 04:43 PM
Now, that's not saying that OSU wouldn't make adjustments and Michigan would face the same things they did Saturday...I doubt that happens, but going 4 and 5 wide is a huge advantage for OSU. I doubt they'd go away from it much. I think they know that if they were to go in a regular single back set with two TE's, Michigan would have a much easier time defending it.

A lot of credit goes to Smith for this too, because with that 5 WR set Michigan was putting consistent pressure on Smith, and it didn't faze him. If Smith can show the kind of poise he showed on Saturday, I don't know that there's a way to beat that 5 WR formation.

Mutaman
11-20-2006, 05:22 PM
A little down as a Badger fan. The best record in school history and we end up back in the Capital One bowl where we'll probably face some really tough underated team from the SEC.

Waiting for 11/3/07 when we go for 3 in a row over OSU. In 2003 you choked our quarterback, and in 2004 we danced on the O.

Cedric
11-20-2006, 05:31 PM
A little down as a Badger fan. The best record in school history and we end up back in the Capital One bowl where we'll probably face some really tough underated team from the SEC.

Waiting for 11/3/07 when we go for 3 in a row over OSU. In 2003 you choked our quarterback, and in 2004 we danced on the O.

Three and two there.

Spring~Fields
11-20-2006, 05:32 PM
the more i think about it...the less i think a rematch makes sense. U-M had their shot at OSU. Let somebody else have a shot now. You wanna play in the NC game? Win your conference.

Yes Max I have to agree with you, the more I think about it too, Michigan had their shot and blew it, so did Notre Dame as they lost to Michigan big, 47-21.

If you wanna play in the NC game, come prepared from the start of the season to the finish and actually beat someone worth mentioning along the way.

Spring~Fields
11-20-2006, 05:37 PM
A little down as a Badger fan. The best record in school history and we end up back in the Capital One bowl where we'll probably face some really tough underated team from the SEC.

Waiting for 11/3/07 when we go for 3 in a row over OSU. In 2003 you choked our quarterback, and in 2004 we danced on the O.


Wisconsin had a fine season and I hope they continue that season in the bowl game and see no reason why not.

2007 Ohio State will have to groom a new QB and take their lumps just like all the rest who lose key players. This year alone they lost nine starters on the defense I think (correct if I am wrong) that is hard to overcome.