Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 179

Thread: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

  1. #61
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    11,845

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    Mike Leach thinks ties should be broken by the respective programs' graduation rates.

    http://www.doubleazone.com/2008/12/t...s_oklahoma.php
    I heard Texas Tech was #1, Texas was #11, and Oklahoma #12.

    Pay attention to the open sky

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    11,845

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    The way I see it, if Florida beats Alabama and Oklahoma beats Missouri, you're going to have 7 11-1 teams (Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC, Penn State, Texas Tech) and 2 12-0 (Utah, Boise State) teams that have pretty legit claims to playing in the BCS NC game. Ho ho.

    The BCS will have to apply all kinds of computer algorithms (on one hand) and polls governed by some tortured and flawed carbon-based unit logic (on the other hand) to come up with its 2 top teams. Accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth of the excluded teams.

    I think a playoff system would be more fair than the existing system. But I also have to say, all the BCS opinion-laden discussions are pretty interesting and impassioned and may be more entertaining than a playoff system.

    Pay attention to the open sky

  4. #63
    WOOOOO!!! *BaseClogger*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Midland, MI
    Posts
    6,367

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    A +1 system would go a long way towards figuring out if Boise State and Utah are for real...
    "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

  5. #64
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    11,845

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    I thought the plus one system just seeded the top 4 teams. #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 and then the top 2 re-seeded teams play in the +1 game. Which would leave out Utah and Boise St.

    But then, I could be mistaken.

    Pay attention to the open sky

  6. #65
    WOOOOO!!! *BaseClogger*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Midland, MI
    Posts
    6,367

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Tucker View Post
    I thought the plus one system just seeded the top 4 teams. #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 and then the top 2 re-seeded teams play in the +1 game. Which would leave out Utah and Boise St.

    But then, I could be mistaken.
    I think you're right. The +1 system I am referring to, and the one I prefer most, is going back to the classic bowl style tie ins. Then, a week after those games are played, a separate National Championship at a rotating BCS Bowl site...
    "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

  7. #66
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    33,862

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    I really hope Florida beats Alabama.... just so we can have two undefeated top 10 teams and neither will be playing for the National Championship. Thats always fun.

  8. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    I have always leaned away from a playoff system mostly because of the cheapening of the regular season argument. However I think as long as it was limited to 4 or 8 teams you could still have a great season with lots of do or die games and have a championship system that is a little more fair.
    This year if you had an 8 team it would probably be the six conference champs and that leaves 2 spots for SEC loser, Texas, Utah, Texas Tech, and Boise State. Now the conversation is going to shift to well does Cincinnati or BC really deserve a spot over Texas or whoever, but the point is that almost all of the games that really mattered this season still do. It might take a little heat off of the SEC game since I think they would both still make it this year but that's it. Ohio State vs. Penn State still huge. All of those great big 10 games still huge. Oregon State losing to Oregon would be even bigger as before they were only playing for the Rose Bowl and now they just lost their shot at a National Championship.

  9. #68
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    I really hope Florida beats Alabama.... just so we can have two undefeated top 10 teams and neither will be playing for the National Championship. Thats always fun.
    But would you want to see Boise State play Utah for the NC?

  10. #69
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Red View Post
    The BCS as a whole would work a lot better if the pollsters stuck to trying to figure out who is the best team, while the computers decided who most deserves to make the BCS title game.
    Very well put. I agree. It would still be a mess, but it would be less so.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  11. #70
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    I think it's a bigger flaw in logic to say, Texas Tech is out of the discussion, so let's focus only on the head-to-head between OU and Texas. It's a three-way tie, not a two-way tie, and they all have identical records, they lost to each other in round-robin fashion. So you have to go somewhere other than head-to-heads to figure it out... but if you did choose a head-to-head to consider, "biggest butt-whooping administered" isn't a bad place to start.
    Great summation. I agree.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  12. #71
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    33,862

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlifeman21 View Post
    But would you want to see Boise State play Utah for the NC?
    I am not sure, buts its entirely possible that we will see three undefeated teams in the top 10 at years end and not a single one of them will have played for the national title. Something needs to be done though.

  13. #72
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    I am not sure, buts its entirely possible that we will see three undefeated teams in the top 10 at years end and not a single one of them will have played for the national title. Something needs to be done though.
    Who would be the 3rd undefeated team?

  14. #73
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    12,568

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlifeman21 View Post
    Who would be the 3rd undefeated team?
    Ball State.
    Championships Matter.
    23 Years and Counting...

  15. #74
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Yeah, it is complete rubbish that a team like Utah or Boise State have zero chance whatsoever to ever play for the national title. Would they win? Probably not very often, if ever. But every once in a while, one of those teams might just pull off a major upset and win it all. But it irritates me to all end that they really have no chance. Why not just separate the 6 BCS conferences from the rest of college football? That's effectively what they're doing. Utah won in Ann Arobr (yes, not a great accomplishment this year), beat Oregon State, beat TCU, and beat a darn good BYU team by a large margin. What more could they possible do? Nothing. They scheduled a big time OOC game on the road. It just so happens that this is about the only year where beating Michigan in the Big House doesn't mean a whole lot. It's totally unfair that the national title is limited to 6 conferences.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  16. #75
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,263

    Re: 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

    Quote Originally Posted by MWM View Post
    Yeah, it is complete rubbish that a team like Utah or Boise State have zero chance whatsoever to ever play for the national title. Would they win? Probably not very often, if ever. But every once in a while, one of those teams might just pull off a major upset and win it all. But it irritates me to all end that they really have no chance. Why not just separate the 6 BCS conferences from the rest of college football? That's effectively what they're doing. Utah won in Ann Arobr (yes, not a great accomplishment this year), beat Oregon State, beat TCU, and beat a darn good BYU team by a large margin. What more could they possible do? Nothing. They scheduled a big time OOC game on the road. It just so happens that this is about the only year where beating Michigan in the Big House doesn't mean a whole lot. It's totally unfair that the national title is limited to 6 conferences.
    I absolutely agree.

    This is another reason why it continually irritates me to see power conference schools constantly schedule weaker schools. There's a disconnect here that I just don't like. If the power schools want to play the small schools, then it's only fair to give the small schools a viable chance to play for and win the national championship. If they want to make the national championship available to only BCS schools, then all the non-conference schedules should be 100 percent BCS schools.

    Until college football can come up with a viable playoff solution to this, their postseason system will always be well behind college hoops and March Madness.

    If the NCAA hoops tourney took the BCS route, then they'd effectively eliminate programs such as Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier from even having a chance at the national championship (and up until a few years ago, teams such as Cincinnati, Louisville, and Marquette fell into this category too). It's absolutely absurd to think about that happening, which is why it's more mind boggling how a football program such as Utah or Boise State has no chance to play for their own national championship.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25