BCS Debate

#52
#52
Champ22 said:
ukvols said:
If LSU and OSU win, and Bama is placed in the national title game, it will be solely because of the SEC's recent dominance in national title games. That is the reason LSU and Bama are perceived to be so much better than the rest of the nation. I think it's incredibly unfair for Bama to be #2 right now.[/QUOTE]

And if ut had only one loss for the year by only 3 pts. in overtime you would think it was unfair for them to be #2? :crazy:
Click to expand...

Oklahoma State and Alabama are both 11-1. Oklahoma State played a tougher overall schedule than Alabama. Therefore, Oklahoma State should be ranked higher. Make sense? :crazy:
Click to expand...
 
#53
#53
Champ22 said:
A team that got beat by an unranked team should be in the nc over a team that has one loss to the #1 team by 3 pts.?
Click to expand...

Like so many other people, you are putting everything on whose loss looks better, instead of looking at the entire season. That's understandable, since that is the extent of the debate that is in Bama's favor.

OSU beat more ranked teams and played a tougher overall schedule and won its conference and hasn't already lost to LSU on its home field.
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
The part about the conference title and not playing LSU don't matter though.

The loss is what most of us are saying though: had Oklahoma State's loss been a close one to Kansas State, for instance, I think they would have made it. The loss to a .500 team negates the better wins IMO.
 
#55
#55
ukvols said:
Like so many other people, you are putting everything on whose loss looks better, instead of looking at the entire season. That's understandable, since that is the extent of the debate that is in Bama's favor.

OSU beat more ranked teams and played a tougher overall schedule and won its conference and hasn't already lost to LSU on its home field.
Click to expand...

OSU played a slightly tougher schedule, yes. But that's not how you determine who the better 11-1 team is. Alabama looked better throughout the year than OSU did. Keeping it close against LSU is good for them, while OSU lost to Iowa State and barely beat a 6-6 A&M squad.

This shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
 
#56
#56
CT_Vol said:
OSU played a slightly tougher schedule, yes. But that's not how you determine who the better 11-1 team is. Alabama looked better throughout the year than OSU did. Keeping it close against LSU is good for them, while OSU lost to Iowa State and barely beat a 6-6 A&M squad.

This shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
Click to expand...

I don't care who you think "looked" better. That is entirely subjective and is a really stupid reason to put them in the title game. They should go with the objective results on the field over 12 games, and if they did that, then OSU would have finished ahead of Bama in a close race. An objective strength of schedule rating should carry far more weight than who you think "looked" better against completely different slates of opponents.
 
#57
#57
milohimself said:
The part about the conference title and not playing LSU don't matter though.

The loss is what most of us are saying though: had Oklahoma State's loss been a close one to Kansas State, for instance, I think they would have made it. The loss to a .500 team negates the better wins IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think that one game should negate the other 11 games, but you are definitely not alone with your opinion.

If they had played schedules of equal strength, then the team with the worst loss would also have the better wins. And, tiebreakers are usually decided by who had the best win, not who had the worst loss (e.g., record vs 3rd-place team, then record vs 4th-place team, etc.) For some reason, probably the inability of human poll voters to remember an entire season, college football's national championship often comes down to who had the worst loss.

And, of course, OSU and Bama didn't even play equal schedules. It seems to be the consensus that OSU played a tougher schedule.

The majority of the nation seems to prefer the Who Beat You argument over the Who Played a Tougher Schedule argument.

I don't agree with that. I think it's the weaker viewpoint.
 
#58
#58
ukvols said:
I don't care who you think "looked" better. That is entirely subjective and is a really stupid reason to put them in the title game. They should go with the objective results on the field over 12 games, and if they did that, then OSU would have finished ahead of Bama in a close race. An objective strength of schedule rating should carry far more weight than who you think "looked" better against completely different slates of opponents.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's still subjective. Oklahoma St beat more ranked teams, but are rankings not totally subjective?

The Big 12's overall SOS is grossly inflated this year because every team played an extra conference game.
 
#59
#59
I just read that Nick Saban ranked OSU lower than #3. And, Chris Petersen did something similar to try to help his at-large cause.

Two classic examples of what an unbelievably flawed, stupid, asinine, unacceptable system we have for deciding the national championship.

I will say one positive thing about the BCS - it is better than the system that it and the one-year Bowl Alliance replaced, which was no system at all.

The BCS is better than nothing.
But, anything is better than the BCS.
 
#60
#60
bamawriter said:
Actually, that's still subjective. Oklahoma St beat more ranked teams, but are rankings not totally subjective?

The Big 12's overall SOS is grossly inflated this year because every team played an extra conference game.
Click to expand...

Those rankings are no more subjective than what got Bama into the title game. I read somewhere that OSU was #2 in the computers. Only subjective human voting picked Bama.

The Big 12 isn't the first BCS league to play nine games. The SEC will probably eventually do it too.
As for inflating their SOS, that can go both ways. Replacing a cupcake with a league game is different than replacing a Top Ten OOC game with a league game. But, that doesn't take into account who the extra league game is against. OSU would not have played all nine of those teams last year.

I also think the conference champion should be picked when it's close enough to be debated.
In football, there are not nearly enough regular season games played between teams from different leagues to get an accurate sense of a league's superiority.

In this case, the rest of the country was discounted and tossed aside.
 
#61
#61
It's really a simple fix. Let bama play OSU on a neutral field. Winner plays LSU for the title. Unless bama blows LSU out there will still be a debate over who's number 1. Rightly so.
 
#62
#62
Bama and OSU are two legit contenders. We cannot possibly know who is better, because they haven't played. But, one of them already lost to LSU at home. And, the other team dominated Oklahoma to win its conference.

Saying Bama shouldn't be penalized for playing in LSU's division is like saying a basketball team shouldn't be penalized for losing to the #1 team in the Elite Eight.
 
#63
#63
ukvols said:
I also think the conference champion should be picked when it's close enough to be debated.
In football, there are not nearly enough regular season games played between teams from different leagues to get an accurate sense of a league's superiority.
Click to expand...

This year, the Big 12 went 3-3 against out-of-conference BCS opponents that finished 6-6 or better. The SEC went 8-3. Again, the SOS argument isn't what it's cracked up to be.
 
#64
#64
ukvols said:
Bama and OSU are two legit contenders. We cannot possibly know who is better, because they haven't played. But, one of them already lost to LSU at home. And, the other team dominated Oklahoma to win its conference.
Click to expand...

The BCS isn't about figuring out who should get the right to play LSU, it's about who should get the right to play for the national championship. When determining who is #2, the identity of #1 is irrelevant.
 
#65
#65
bamawriter said:
The BCS isn't about figuring out who should get the right to play LSU, it's about who should get the right to play for the national championship. When determining who is #2, the identity of #1 is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Which is why a playoff is needed.
 
#67
#67
bamawriter said:
I agree. But under the system we currently have, the "Bama already got their shot at LSU" argument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

My Proposal:
8 TEAM PLAYOFF

Conference Championship Winners from -
SEC, BIGTEN, PAC12, BIG12, Big East, ACC

2 At Large - Higher ranked (per current method?) of Conference Championship Game losers. (ND must join a conference to be included)

GAMES PLAYED AT:
Orange Bowl
Citrus Bowl (heck, Motor City bowl for all I care)
Cotton Bowl
Fiesta Bowl

Second Round Games
Rose Bowl
Sugar Bowl

GBChampionship Game <---GatorBillChampionship game. Kind of like the sound of that!!

Rotate just as BCS games does now.

That settles everything except for the bickering over who gets the 2 at large games, but it still makes it closer.
 
#68
#68
I like it, except that I don't see why so many bowls need to be included. Staying tied to bowl games is part of what is weighing us down. That is the anchor that we need to throw overboard.
 
#69
#69
bamawriter said:
The BCS isn't about figuring out who should get the right to play LSU, it's about who should get the right to play for the national championship. When determining who is #2, the identity of #1 is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That is a fair point.

But if it's two 11-1 teams, I think the team with the higher SOS should go.
And, I think the conference champion should get the nod, unless they have no legit case.

At the very least, you have to admit this situation is unfair for LSU. They beat Bama on the road, then had to win what might have been an all-or-nothing game (we'll never know), and now have to beat Bama a second time after Bama received a bye for finishing 2nd and not 1st.
 
#70
#70
bamawriter said:
This year, the Big 12 went 3-3 against out-of-conference BCS opponents that finished 6-6 or better. The SEC went 8-3. Again, the SOS argument isn't what it's cracked up to be.
Click to expand...

If those numbers are correct, then the SEC's cupcake opponents must be full of a lot more fat, sugar, and bad calories than the Big 12's cupcake opponents.

No argument is perfect when you're dealing with the BCS. (Right now, somewhere an annoying radio host is talking about how great and successful the BCS is, because it has given us something to discuss today.) I prefer the 12-game SOS argument over the comparison of the lone loss argument, because of my opinion that each season should stand alone, and the entire season should count.
 
#71
#71
ukvols said:
I like it, except that I don't see why so many bowls need to be included. Staying tied to bowl games is part of what is weighing us down. That is the anchor that we need to throw overboard.
Click to expand...

I think you NEED to put the 6 conference Champions in, and I think you need to have a couple at large just to keep things interesting.

8 is a good number, and then if you use the bowls you are keeping the "bowl traditionalists" happy. I would do this without bowls, but the Bowl Committees and Jim Delany are the ones that are keeping this from happening in the first place.

I would never go past 8 teams. That creates too many extra games. 4 teams may not be enough. This system is almost infallible.
 
#72
#72
I agree that is 8 is good. That's what I have wanted for many years.
The schools need to realize the money that is wasted on the bowl committees.
I guess that won't happen, with school leaders being entertained by said committees.
 
#73
#73
i never really had a problem with the BCS until this year. it has given us match ups that under the old system we would have never seen. that was the point. USC vs. TX, OSU vs. Miami LSU vs. Oklahoma, FL vs. OSU and LSU vs. OSU...1 vs. 2 in a bowl was a rarity, and the BCS made that possible.

the issue of "deserving" teams while i guess legitimate, in the end didn't matter, cause most years it got it right despite the turmoil during the season.

the other thing i liked about the BCS is it over valued the regular season. every week a play off etc, etc, etc....which was true for the top 10-15 teams in the country.

winning all your conference games, ultimately winning your conference mattered.

when Oklahoma played for the NT after losing it's conf c'ship game and when Nebraska played Miami after not even winning it's division much less conference, that was the writing on the wall for me.

winning your conference SHOULD matter. currently is does not.

If i'm an LSU fan, i'm fairly pissed. Alabama had their shot. that's why we played that game.

in the end, if Bama beats LSU, what the hell does winning the SEC mean anymore?

anyone know off the top of their heads who won the Big 12 those two years i mentioned earlier? who cares.

i think back to when we were actually in NT contention. if you were to tell me back in 1998 that your reward for beating Florida and winning the SEC was to play Florida again for the national title, we'd probalby fight.

but, the system is what it is, so it "got it right", solely based on that system.

that doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

OSU deserves a shot at LSU. i don't think that can be argued.

what i'd like to see is a plus one....but i'd also like to see some tweaking to how teams are ranked....how is Clemson ranked below VT after beating them....TWICE? How is Oregon ranked below Stanford? if two teams have identical records and there's a head to head, i don't see how the loser of that game could be ranked higher than the winner. that needs fixed.

we talk about settling it on the field, but there's 2 examples where on the field apparently doesn't matter....oh, and then there's that NT game that has already been settled on the field too.

so put me officially in the BOOOO the BCS crowd. it got it wrong this year, even if it is right.
 
#74
#74
UGA insider said:
The only question I have is whatever happened to the ESPN jerkoffs that were having a fit back in 07 about the BCS game. Their biggest argument was that a team that is not even playing for their own conference championship has no business being mentioned about playing for a NC.

Funny how that works now. They did have Roll Tide commercials all over their networks before the season began and they even had an all access program as well.

I love ESPN.
Click to expand...

Biggest argument?... Wasn't UGA a two loss team; had a weaker strength of schedule; allowed Troy and the Western Carolina Catamonts score a combined 50 points; and absolutely monkey stomped by UT in 2007?... Uh, there were a few arguments against UGA that year.
 
#75
#75
Bama gets in by winning a popularity contest and having the best loss. It had nothing to do with who they beat on the field.

If better wins really mattered, OSU goes no question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top