Really, I have a tough time seeing how anyone with an ounce of sense thinks that Oklahoma is better than Texas (who beat them) and Florida (who looks better than anyone else in the nation right now).
Really, I have a tough time seeing how anyone with an ounce of sense thinks that Oklahoma is better than Texas (who beat them) and Florida (who looks better than anyone else in the nation right now).
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
While I will give you the Texas argument, I would say people saying Oklahoma is better than Florida can hold some weight. Florida looks really good, but they have 1 loss just like Oklahoma, only Florida lost at home to a good, but not very good team. Oklahoma lost at a neutral site to one of the best teams in the country. Is Florida better than Oklahoma, yeah, I think so. But there is an argument that suggests they might not be.Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
My own updated BCS projections as of now with the latest BCS update:
BCS National Championship
Florida vs. Oklahoma
Fiesta Bowl
Texas vs. Utah
Sugar Bowl
Alabama vs. Ohio State
Orange Bowl
Cincinnati vs. Boston College
Rose Bowl
USC vs. Penn State
Note that this is what I think will happen, not necessarily what I want to see happen. There are quite a few differences in what I want to happen vs. what I think will happen.
The Lost Decade Average Season: 74-88
2014-22 Average Season: 71-91
Nothing about it makes sense, but if I had a vote, it would go to Oklahoma over Texas. I just think they're better and would have a better chance of knocking off Alabama or Florida in the title game. I watched their game and I thought Oklahoma looked like the better team most of the game. A couple of key mistakes hurt them.
But if you use the same logic, how could you vote Texas ahead of Texas Tech when they both have one loss and Tech beat Texas? If you're trying to apply a consistent logic with any of this, it's a futile exercise.
Heck, you could make the case for or against several team other than Alabama who is undefeated. I think one could argue that USC is as deserving as any other one loss team. They're defense has been awesome all year. They're one of the few teams with a marquis non-conference win. Their loss was on the road early in the season to a team that wound up being pretty good.
Personally, I think Florida might be the best team in the country right now. But if we're going to be consistent from year to year, we have to apply the same types of criteria that get applied every year. In the past, I've been told that it's not a matter of who you think is best, but you have to look at other factors first. None of the teams in the runing have a loss as bad as Ole Miss at home. When USC lost to Oregon State, right here on this site plenty of folks said that if you lose to Oregon State, you don't deserve to play for the title. It's hypocritical for people to virtually eliminate USC after that loss, but not Florida after Ole Miss.
And I know the respnse is going to be SEC, SEC. Normally, I might agree, but to be perfectly honest, that argument doesn't hold near the water it has in the past. While normally, the SEC is incredibly tough, this year not so much. I know that's blasphemy to some, but I call them like I see them, and this year, outside of Alabama and Florida, there's no other great team. Goergia is pretty good, but I think we've learned they're not all that great. They don't know how to play defense which precludes them from being a top tier team. And LSU was never that good to begin with. South Carolina? Nah. So this year, I don't think you can use the SEC schedule as an argument for a team like Florida. Now, it Florida beats Alabama, then it would be tough to keep them out. But as of right now, they really don't have a marquis win this season.
And I think it's ridiculous that Penn State is just completely forgotten just because they're in the Big Ten. They have a pretty good non-conference win by demolishing Oregon State. And they went in and beat Ohio State in Columbus. Yet, they're not even getting mentioned, which is BS, IMO. They could play with anyone in the mix and are as deserving as anyone.
It's utter nonsense that we have to go through the exercise every single year of prettying up some teams while trying to find warts in others. It lends itself to bias with voters looking for reasons to put some teams in the game while leave others out. It's all so arbitrary and it's insulting that some of the pundits, and fans, try to pretend that it's object. There's so much hypocrisy in the process, it's ridiculous.
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
I'm with you on all your other points -- especially re: USC. They're playing just as well as any other team in the nation right now, save for maybe Florida. They get hurt, as always, not so much by the fact that they play on the west coast but rather that most of their opponents play on the west coast. People know all about USC, but much less about the quality of the teams they're playing.
But, the Penn State point is a little weaker. They're playing in the second-weakest BCS conference (behind only the Big East), their loss to Iowa (current BCS rank of 31), albeit on the road, is about the same as Florida losing to Ole' Miss (current BCS rank of 27). Plus, they're hurt (as usual) by not having a conference title game that puts them up against another top-ranked opponent to boost SOS at the end of the year.
Plus, there's the undeniable fact that they just don't look as talented as any of the other teams being talked about here. I don't see Penn State beating a single team ahead of them, save for Utah, on a neutral site. When Penn State plays, they look they're moving in slow motion. They'd get destroyed, IMO, by Florida, USC, Oklahoma or Texas.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
That's the problem right there. Due to recent BCS and regular season failures, the Big 10 will be overlooked because the people in charge do not think the best Big 10 team can beat USC or the best the Big 12 or SEC has to offer. I wonder if they would even be 2nd in the BCS if they had beaten Iowa. The Big 10 commissioner is the main obstacle to a playoff system but his conference is getting screwed in the BCS because of past failures.
I think USC will simply crush Penn State. Penn State has not looked that good towards the end of the season, even with that "convincing" win over MSU.
Oklahoma will have no problem with Missouri. I'd love to see Alabama beat Florida, but I don't think it's gonna happen.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I think Oklahoma over Texas is the right call. You can't just look at the head to head matchup, that ignores 11 other games. Oklahoma beat BCS bowl bound Cincinnati OOC, while Texas' best OOC win was TCU. Looking at the three way tie, Oklahoma destroyed TTU while Texas lost to them.
Keeping score that's 2-1 in favor of Oklahoma. I think everything else balances out. It's really not fair to Texas, but them's the breaks in a flawed system. It's really not fair to USC, Penn State, or Bama if they lose to Florida, either.
I think USC-Penn State will make for a great Rose Bowl (assuming USC beats UCLA). I look for that to be a great game.
I won't be watching the National Championship if Oklahoma is involved. They simply aren't that good IMO. I look for them to get crushed yet again. Every year they fool people into thinking they are a top two team and every year they get owned in the BCS bowl.
I disagree. I'd say you probably didn't watch a whole lot of Penn State this year if you think they're slow. They had a bad few games on offense, but for most of the year, they looked really good. They were their own worst enemy moving back to the conservative style offense. Once they moved back to more aggressive paly calling, they started to look like a great team again. They beat a couple of pretty good teams badly. I'm also quite tired of conference arguments as well. Sure, that's important, but it gets so overblown. Conference strength or weakness can be misleading. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Some conferences have two great teams, then not much of anything else. Other conferences have one great team, and then a bunch of above average teams. Others can have a bunch of average teams. Again, I think the conference arguments get way overblown. I've watched Penn State play several times this year. I don't care what the computers say about the Big Ten, they can play with any top 10 team. I'm not saying they would win, but they could and they wouldn't get blown out. They would not get blown out by those teams We heard the same thing last year about the Big Ten. And Michigan was the third best team in the Big Ten and Florida was the second best team in SEC. People said the same thing about itbeing a blow out. Turns out Michigan pretty much handled Florida pretty easily. Year after year we hear the same arguments, yet over the past decade, only 1 game separates the Big Ten from the SEC in head to head bowl games.
The Big Ten is better than the ACC, the Big East, is every bit as good as the Pac-10. I don't accept the "conference rankings" as bible and I don't think anyone else should either. People take those rankings and use them to project upon a team. I look at the individual team much more than I do the conference. Back when USC was winning National Titles, the Pac-10 was awful, yet that didn't mean they weren't the best team in the country. I think the whole conference strength argument is having way too much impact on perceptions of individual teams. I loathe the logic of .... Team A plays in conferce X which isn't very good, therefore, Team A must not be very good.
Certainly, some conferences are better than others, but the difference isn't near as great as some make it out to be ... especially this year. For the most part, conference strengths are deterined by the middle of the curve teams. I think the top team or two in most conferences could compete with the top couple of teams in most other conferences. And that's what we're talking here. Does it really matter that the #4-#6 teams in Conference A aren't as bad as the #4-#6 teams in another conference? Because that's really what we're arguing when we argue conference strengths.
Does Florida or Alabama have a marquis out of conference win? Floirda State? Nope. Not Florida's fault, as having them on the schedule every year is a tough thing. Miami? Nope. Clemson for Alabama? Nope.
How about Texas? They played no one outside their conference this year. At least Oklahoma has a decisive win against Cincinnati who won the Big East and is a pretty good team.
Yet, USC played Ohio State and demilished them, yet no no one seems to blink an eye about them not being the national title conversation. Of all the teams involved, they are the ones getting the shaft the most. There's so much speaking out of both sides of the mouth from both the media and fans that it's become comical. For years, I kept hearing about how certain teams shouldn't be given opportunities because they haven't beaten anyone and they didn't play anyone out of conference. Even when good programs were scheduled tha were having a down year, that was no consolation. Sure, folks would admit that it's not their fault, but the lack of quality wins outside the conference was always played up as a reason to leave teams out while other ones were in. Yet this year, no one is saying boo about it this year with other teams.
If we're not going to have a playoff, the very least the voters and media should do is be consistent with the criteria they use every year to determine who is in and who gets left out. But it's something different every year depending on someone's pre-determined beliefs or based on brand name of the team's involved. It's an inherently unfair system that takes it off the field, and I hate that.
Last edited by MWM; 11-30-2008 at 08:23 PM.
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
Exactly. You can't ignore the other computer variables, and simply look at a head-to-head matchup between two teams as the sole determining factor. It is a flawed system.
They need a playoff system.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
On a neutral field, maybe. But another thing that sucks about the bowl system is that certain teams get to play home games most of the time in their bowl. I don't think it will be a blowout, but if it were played on a neutral site it would be a different game. USC would still be the favorite, but not by as much.
And I disagree on Oklahoma. I think they're really good and could play with anyone, including Florida and Alabama. I'm not going to worry about something that happened years ago. It' a different team.
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
You are seriously underestimating the financial impact a school like OSU will make for a Bowl game. The non championship games are anything but guaranteed sellouts and OSU has as much national TV appeal/fan base as any program.
If it is indeed an Alabama vs OSU Sugar Bowl ask a lot of the locals in New Orleans if they wouldn't be happy to see the masses of Buckeye fans come back. They were gushing in their thanks last year for all the business that OSU fans brought to them as they continue to rebuild.
If OSU gets invited to the BCS it will be their 4th at large invite in as many chances for a reason, they make a much larger difference than just a couple of hotel rooms.
I don't profess to be a college football expert, and I'll admit I only watched Penn State play 3 or 4 times this year. It's no secret I'm not a fan of the Big 10's style of play, and I usually don't watch if there's an equally compelling game from another conference on. So I'm certain there's a fair amount of bias there.
When I did watch Penn State play, what I saw was a fairly vanilla offense that was punctuated by the occasional big play. I didn't see a lot of explosiveness from anyone on the offense, and I certainly didn't see a lot of creative scheming. That was just my impressions of them. They did beat some good teams this year -- I thought their end-of-the-year win against Michigan State was fairly impressive, but my "come away" from that game was more "Man, Michigan State is a total fraud" moreso than "Man, Penn State is really good."
Just my opinion, admittedly colored by a distaste for Big 10 football.
And I agree -- which is why I think you need to look at the bigger picture to determine whether a team is any good. How are they coached? Do they play well on both sides of the ball? Do they have top-flight talent at the key positions on the field? How do they play in big-time games? Who are they playing and beating? Etc.I'm also quite tired of conference arguments as well. Sure, that's important, but it gets so overblown. Conference strength or weakness can be misleading. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Some conferences have two great teams, then not much of anything else. Other conferences have one great team, and then a bunch of above average teams. Others can have a bunch of average teams. Again, I think the conference arguments get way overblown.
Conference quality factors in there, but as one of many factors. I don't think anyone is saying that X team is better than Y team because X's conference is better than Y's. If they are saying that, their opinion doesn't really matter.
Not for nothing, but Florida State was a Top-20 team as of last week and are still in the Top-25 in the latest BCS rankings. I'd say that qualifies as a quality road win, especially given their status as an in-state rival -- even if I do think that Florida State tends to get more "sentimental" votes than other programs that leads to them being ranked when they aren't really all that good.Does Florida or Alabama have a marquis out of conference win? Floirda State? Nope. Not Florida's fault, as having them on the schedule every year is a tough thing. Miami? Nope. Clemson for Alabama? Nope.
Texas's OOC schedule is weak, but my gosh -- look at the gauntlet they ran in the Big 12: vs. 1 Oklahoma, v. 11 Missouri, v. 6 Oklahoma State (all Ws) and then a last-second loss @ 7 Texas Tech. Same with Oklahoma, except add in TCU, Cincinnati and Kansas for them.How about Texas? They played no one outside their conference this year. At least Oklahoma has a decisive win against Cincinnati who won the Big East and is a pretty good team.
Penn State and USC both have quality OOC wins (Oregon State for Penn and Ohio State for USC), but both are at home vs. trans-continental opponents. Teams that travel cross-country to play a game, generally, don't play well and end up at a massive disadvantage. They're good wins, but you've gotta take both with a grain of salt, IMO.
So who do you reward? The team that plays tough OOC opponents but plays in a dog conference? The team from the powerhouse conference that dominates but plays no one from the outside? Everything is fluid every year, and there's no way to weigh what should matter most in a given year.If we're not going to have a playoff, the very least the voters and media should do is be consistent with the criteria they use every year to determine who is in and who gets left out. But it's something different every year depending on someone's pre-determined beliefs or based on brand name of the team's involved. It's an inherently unfair system that takes it off the field, and I hate that.
This year, does the Big 12's plethora of top-flight teams offset the weak OOC schedule from some of their squads? Do we excuse a weak PAC 10 or weak Big 10 because it's outside of Penn State's or USC's control and look to their quality OOC wins?
If you can figure out a way to weigh all this kinda stuff and make some list of factors and their importance then more power to you. I don't think it's possible under the system we have now -- because apparently there are computers out there that think Utah is a better team than Florida, which is just unfathomable.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think every BCS bowl has sold out since the system began.
These games make tons of money for both the BCS and the cities regardless of who plays. Does a football factory school like Oklahoma or Ohio State bring a huge contingent of fans? Surely.
But the game will sell out regardless of who plays, fans will travel regardless of who plays, and a lot of money will be made regardless of who plays. Unless the goal is purely profit maximization (in which case the entire system is just a sham), the BCS should be seeded by what happens on the field instead of what happens with boosters.
Now, your garden variety bowls...that's a different story entirely.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote