BCS: Louisville/Florida

Off Topic
23

[quote]nolecat wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
GO RUTGERS!!!

Louisvill belongs nowhere near a Nat’l title game.

Why? How do you know that? Are you going to tell me what a powerhoise the Big 10 is? Look again…and yes, the big east is weak, so is the ACC, Big 12 and PAC 10(ok, the PAC 10 just sucks). Again, you can’t compare unless the play!

Hey, in 1980, there was no way the US could compete against the Russians in hockey. There was no way Jim Valvano’s Wolf pack could beat Houston. There was no way Tom Brady and the 14 point underdog Patriots could beat the Rams with Kurt Warner. The point is, you don’t know unless they play it on the field…not in some computer poll![/quote]

You should have taken your own advice and hit your meds!

Wow!!Have there really been upsets in the world of sports–you’re shittin me.

It has nothing to do with the conference strength, how about the strength of the top 2 or 3 teams in any conference. Florida, LSU, OS, Mich. Texas and probabbly Tenn Auburn Okl USC…are all better. Can they be beat YES. Fine. But if you really think Louisville has a shot at Ohio St. you need more than OTC meds–call a doc.

Ohio St 45 Louisvillee 17.

And it’s only that close because Tressel will run it the whole second half and the reserve defense will give up a late meaningless score.

24

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
nolecat wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
GO RUTGERS!!!

Louisvill belongs nowhere near a Nat’l title game.

Why? How do you know that? Are you going to tell me what a powerhoise the Big 10 is? Look again…and yes, the big east is weak, so is the ACC, Big 12 and PAC 10(ok, the PAC 10 just sucks). Again, you can’t compare unless the play!

Hey, in 1980, there was no way the US could compete against the Russians in hockey. There was no way Jim Valvano’s Wolf pack could beat Houston. There was no way Tom Brady and the 14 point underdog Patriots could beat the Rams with Kurt Warner. The point is, you don’t know unless they play it on the field…not in some computer poll!

You should have taken your own advice and hit your meds!

Wow!!Have there really been upsets in the world of sports–you’re shittin me.

It has nothing to do with the conference strength, how about the strength of the top 2 or 3 teams in any conference. Florida, LSU, OS, Mich. Texas and probabbly Tenn Auburn Okl USC…are all better. Can they be beat YES. Fine. But if you really think Louisville has a shot at Ohio St. you need more than OTC meds–call a doc.

Ohio St 45 Louisvillee 17.

And it’s only that close because Tressel will run it the whole second half and the reserve defense will give up a late meaningless score.[/quote]

And how do you know LSU, Auburn, Tenn, etc…are better. Did they play each other this year?

Truth be told, yes OSU would probably beat UL any day. But, you still can’t say that is certain. and if Louisville loses tonight, then the argument is moot and I stand corrected. Still, the mentality amongst several fans and media in college football is that no small school team can run with the big boys. They don’t even deserve a shot. I wish fans and media treated nontraditional successful teams in college football like they do in college basketball…a little respect.

And, yes, I know you are aware of major upsets in the world of sports. I am not chastising you. The point was to show that championships should be decided by letting teams play each other…not by me or you or some voter telling the team “you don’t deserve a shot.”

And for the record, I am a UK fan…i hate Louisville!

25

Make the kick!!!

Just make the kick.

26

[quote]emdawgz1 wrote:
I agree though that the championship should be handled thru a playoff.

[/quote]

I have to disagree here. I think a playoff would be awful. Sure the debate between 2 and 3 is bad, but often it’s pretty clear-cut. If there’s a playoff… where do you stop? And how do you decide. I think there’s usually a bigger difference between #2 and #3 then between #8 and #9 for instance.

Plus, what I love most about college football is that the regular season means something. I mean REALLY means something. Every game is a playoff in college football, because if you lose 1, you’re usually done. I find that a lot of time the whole debate works out in the end. Sometimes it doesn’t (LSU, Auburn)… but usually it does.

And hey, if there’s one thing I know FOR SURE, it’s that college football fans lovvveee to complain!

27

Assume Rutgers beat Louisville and forget this whole damn thread!!!

28

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Plus, what I love most about college football is that the regular season means something. I mean REALLY means something. Every game is a playoff in college football, because if you lose 1, you’re usually done. I find that a lot of time the whole debate works out in the end. Sometimes it doesn’t (LSU, Auburn)… but usually it does.
[/quote]

History of the BCS:

1998 - Tennessee goes undefeated and is the clear cut National Championship. Kansas State loses in the Big 12 championship and goes to the Alamo Bowl. BCS worked in selecting the National Champion, but KSU got screwed. Bowl alliance system would have been better.

1999 - Florida State and VaTech go undefeated. FSU wins championship. BCS worked, although one-loss Nebraska may have been a better opponent. One-loss KSU finishes 6th and again misses out on BCS.

-These two years led to the Kansas State Rule, more careful selection of the at-large teams.

2000 - Oklahoma beats one-loss FSU to go undefeated and win the National Title. One-loss Miami, who beat FSU earlier, beats #7 Florida.

2001 - Nebraska squeaks into National Championship and gets spanked by Miami. NU didn’t even go to the Big 12 championship after getting beat by Colorado 62-36. Yes, 62. One-loss Oregon probably would have gave Miami a much better game.

2002 - Undefeated Ohio State beats undefeated Miami to become clear cut champion. Not much controversy this year.

2003 - LSU beats Oklahoma to win BCS Title Game, but USC beats Michigan in the Rose Bowl and finishes first in the AP Poll, split National Champions.

2004 - Undefeated USC beats then Undefeated Oklahoma to win National Championship. Auburn also finishes undefeated in the toughest conference in the country, but due to starting the season ranked low, doesn’t even get a chance. Utah also finishes undefeated.

2005 - Texas and USC go undefeated. Texas wins, a successful year for the BCS.

In the last 6 years the BCS has created a National Championship just twice without controversy. To say a playoff system wouldn’t be better is ridiculous. 12 teams, you are right in saying it is typically harder to distinguish 12 from 13 than 3 from 2, but 13 is going to have a tough time convincing anybody they are National Championship worthy.

29

[quote]tedro wrote:

2002 - Undefeated Ohio State beats undefeated Miami to become clear cut champion. Not much controversy this year.
[/quote]

Except a really late flag for pass interference to give OSU a second chance to win the game.

30

LOL

Yeah, what exactly was “clear cut” about that OSU win in '02?

Maybe it was the Sports Illustrated Article that named it the worst call of 2002, in their January issue the following year.

Lemme replay this post in my head…

Yep… OSU got lucky on that one.

31

[quote]Jon Boyle wrote:
LOL

Yeah, what exactly was “clear cut” about that OSU win in '02?

Maybe it was the Sports Illustrated Article that named it the worst call of 2002, in their January issue the following year.

Lemme replay this post in my head…

Yep… OSU got lucky on that one. [/quote]

I was talking only about how the BCS worked. My point was that it succeeded in picking the best two teams to play for a national title. Whether or not the actual game was played out fairly has nothing to do with my post.

By the way, I agree, that was a bad call.

32

[quote]tedro wrote:
Jon Boyle wrote:
LOL

Yeah, what exactly was “clear cut” about that OSU win in '02?

Maybe it was the Sports Illustrated Article that named it the worst call of 2002, in their January issue the following year.

Lemme replay this post in my head…

Yep… OSU got lucky on that one.

I was talking only about how the BCS worked. My point was that it succeeded in picking the best two teams to play for a national title. Whether or not the actual game was played out fairly has nothing to do with my post.

By the way, I agree, that was a bad call.
[/quote]

I know what you meant, I just thought it was funny that when you said “no controversy” the first thing I thought of was that call.

Also, I agree with your assessment of the BCS and the need for a playoff to decide the national champion for the most part. However, I have one thing that keeps me from fully supporting a playoff system and it involves the second half of the top 25.

Every year there are teams like Cal and Wisconsin and others who aren’t quite powerhouse yet often find themselves ranked in the teens at season’s end. Realistically, all these teams are playing for is a decent bowl game and to end the season with a win. A straight playoff system would basically take away what these second tier teams are playing for.

In the NFL, 12 out of 32 teams go to the playoffs. The over 1/3 of the teams in the league. The playoffs work, because every year, each team has at least an outside shot of making the playoffs. For the NCAA to have a playoffs using a similar ratio they would need to send 42 teams to the playoffs.

So as much as I would love to see a playoff decide the national champion, I would rather have one or two teams cry about not being chosen, than have 60 other teams have nothing to play for.

33

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
emdawgz1 wrote:
I agree though that the championship should be handled thru a playoff.

I have to disagree here. I think a playoff would be awful. Sure the debate between 2 and 3 is bad, but often it’s pretty clear-cut. If there’s a playoff… where do you stop? And how do you decide. I think there’s usually a bigger difference between #2 and #3 then between #8 and #9 for instance.

Plus, what I love most about college football is that the regular season means something. I mean REALLY means something. Every game is a playoff in college football, because if you lose 1, you’re usually done. I find that a lot of time the whole debate works out in the end. Sometimes it doesn’t (LSU, Auburn)… but usually it does.

And hey, if there’s one thing I know FOR SURE, it’s that college football fans lovvveee to complain![/quote]

I’m sorry, I have to disagree. The regular season is not like a playoff. So, if there is a rematch between OSU and Michigan…how is that a playoff?
How does Auburn go undefeated in the toughest conference and get left out?
The regular season means too much. There is no room for error. You have coaches constantly on the hot seat for losing 2 games. And the BCS doesn’t work…it gets lucky. It got lucky with Texas and USC…and just because they’re undefeated doesn’t mean they’re better then a 1 loss SEC team.

How come BCS lovers never push for this system in any other sport? If it works so well, why not have it in Div.AA, NFL, NBA?

The top 8 would be perfect for a playoff. 9 and 10 may complain, but hell, 66 and 67 complain in basketball. Choosing only 2 is not a representation of the best of the best.

34

[quote]malonetd wrote:
tedro wrote:
Jon Boyle wrote:
LOL

Yeah, what exactly was “clear cut” about that OSU win in '02?

Maybe it was the Sports Illustrated Article that named it the worst call of 2002, in their January issue the following year.

Lemme replay this post in my head…

Yep… OSU got lucky on that one.

I was talking only about how the BCS worked. My point was that it succeeded in picking the best two teams to play for a national title. Whether or not the actual game was played out fairly has nothing to do with my post.

By the way, I agree, that was a bad call.

I know what you meant, I just thought it was funny that when you said “no controversy” the first thing I thought of was that call.

Also, I agree with your assessment of the BCS and the need for a playoff to decide the national champion for the most part. However, I have one thing that keeps me from fully supporting a playoff system and it involves the second half of the top 25.

Every year there are teams like Cal and Wisconsin and others who aren’t quite powerhouse yet often find themselves ranked in the teens at season’s end. Realistically, all these teams are playing for is a decent bowl game and to end the season with a win. A straight playoff system would basically take away what these second tier teams are playing for.

In the NFL, 12 out of 32 teams go to the playoffs. The over 1/3 of the teams in the league. The playoffs work, because every year, each team has at least an outside shot of making the playoffs. For the NCAA to have a playoffs using a similar ratio they would need to send 42 teams to the playoffs.

So as much as I would love to see a playoff decide the national champion, I would rather have one or two teams cry about not being chosen, than have 60 other teams have nothing to play for.[/quote]

I just can’t believe that people are satisfied with giving only 2 teams the opportunity. You filter out so many good teams with this system.

I agree with you about the bottom half getting left out. But, teams from that second half can finish the next year in the top 10. Cal and Wisonsin won’t stay down there forever. So, yes there will be some years when good teams will get left out. But for years when Utah and Rutgers and any other smaller school finish in the top 10, a playoff would give them an opportunity to compete for a title. Why should they not get a shot?

35

And one more thing…Lets give all respect to Rutgers…this team has been on Div. IA life support for the last 2 decades. This is a great and inspiring turn around and the best story this year.

By the way, anyone heard anything about the Michigan State job?

36

[quote]nolecat wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
emdawgz1 wrote:
I agree though that the championship should be handled thru a playoff.

I have to disagree here. I think a playoff would be awful. Sure the debate between 2 and 3 is bad, but often it’s pretty clear-cut. If there’s a playoff… where do you stop? And how do you decide. I think there’s usually a bigger difference between #2 and #3 then between #8 and #9 for instance.

Plus, what I love most about college football is that the regular season means something. I mean REALLY means something. Every game is a playoff in college football, because if you lose 1, you’re usually done. I find that a lot of time the whole debate works out in the end. Sometimes it doesn’t (LSU, Auburn)… but usually it does.

And hey, if there’s one thing I know FOR SURE, it’s that college football fans lovvveee to complain!

I’m sorry, I have to disagree. The regular season is not like a playoff. So, if there is a rematch between OSU and Michigan…how is that a playoff?
How does Auburn go undefeated in the toughest conference and get left out?
The regular season means too much. There is no room for error. You have coaches constantly on the hot seat for losing 2 games. And the BCS doesn’t work…it gets lucky. It got lucky with Texas and USC…and just because they’re undefeated doesn’t mean they’re better then a 1 loss SEC team.

How come BCS lovers never push for this system in any other sport? If it works so well, why not have it in Div.AA, NFL, NBA?

The top 8 would be perfect for a playoff. 9 and 10 may complain, but hell, 66 and 67 complain in basketball. Choosing only 2 is not a representation of the best of the best.
[/quote]

I could not agree more.

37

Enough BCS talk. Is Rutgers coach going top Miami? I hope not.

38

Nolecat and Tedro,

You guys bring up some good points. However, remember that hindsight is always 20-20. Sure maybe you can say that “this team would’ve given them a better game”, etc. etc., but you would be able to say that about any situation. In 2004 there was a ton of controversy, but remember that Auburn was 3rd in both major polls and all six BCS computer formulas! Sure people can bitch and moan that they belonged in there all they wanted, but then… why didn’t enough people vote them second?

One of the biggest problems with a playoff system is that every year, the makeup of the top 10 or 15 teams changes.

Let’s look at each individual year and see playoff vs. BCS (I’m going 2000 and after since that’s the “modern” BCS).

2000- Oklahoma was clearly the #1 team. After that you had a tangled mess. Florida State and Miami were clearly #2 and #3 (although obviously there was and should have been huge debate about who should’ve been #2). A 4-team playoff couldn’t have worked as there were 3 teams who legimately could’ve been #4 and even #7 Florida had a possible claim. An 8-team playoff would’ve worked well here, since there was a pretty big seperation between #8 Nebraska and #9 Kansas State. A 12-team playoff (although in my opinion it’s way too long for a playoff system) wouldn’t have had much controversy either.

2001- A similar situation. Miami was the clear #1 and after that it was a clusterfuck. A 4-team playoff would’ve worked perfectly as there was a big seperation between #'s 2,3 and 4 Nebraska, Colorado and Oregon and #5 Florida. An 8-team playoff would’ve been pretty disastrous. 10-2 Maryland was ranked #6 in both polls but #10 in the BCS. In the BCS rankings, there is virtually no seperation between #8 Illinois and #11 Oklahoma. A 12-team playoff would’ve been tough as well as Washington State was #13 in both polls, but ahead in computer average and only had 2 losses, compared to #12 LSU, who was behind in the computers and had three losses in a fairly weak SEC, although they did win the SEC championship game.

2002- A 1v2 championship was the obvious choice here. 4-team playoff could not possibly have worked since Georgia, USC and Iowa were all so close. An 8-team playoff couldn’t have worked either #'s6-10 all had 2 losses and even 3-loss Michigan, with the nation’s 2nd hardest schedule could’ve laid a claim. 12 teams probably would’ve worked as #13 Colorado was a bit back with 4 losses.

2003- Ah, the shared championship. Obviously a 1v2 championship didn’t work (although I guess with the shared championship, you might say it did). A 4-team playoff would’ve worked perfectly, as Michigan was clearly the #4 team in the country this year. 8-teams wouldn’t have worked at all. BCS #7 FSU was #9 in one poll. BCS #10 KSU was #8 in one poll. A total of 5 teams were ranked 7th, 8th or 9th in the two major pollls. 12 teams couldn’t have worked. Miami was #14 and 15 in the two polls, but 11th in the BCS and had a valid claim to the top 8 with a 6.00 computer ranking! Would it have been fair to leapfrog them over Iowa (13th and 12th) or Purdue (12th and 13th)? And how about 1-loss teams like Boise State or TCU, would it have been fair to include 3-loss teams like Georgia and KSU (both clearly ranked higher) over them?

2004- The infamous Auburn year. To be honest, I think the way it turned out was the best way to do it. Auburn was #3 in both polls and 3rd in every computer ranking. There wasn’t one official system that ranked them ahead of USC or Oklahoma. However, if you would’ve gone to a 4-team, there would’ve been incredible debate between Cal and Texas, and even undefeated Utah. An 8-team playoff could’n’t have worked- Louisville was #7 and #8 in the polls, but #13 in the computer rankings. Boise State was #9 in both polls, but only had 1 loss and was 7th in the computer rankings. Virginia Tech was #9 in both polls and 9th in the computer rankings, but 8th in the BCS. If you went to 12 teams, how could you have chosen between Michigan and Iowa? Iowa had one less loss and a higher computer ranking (12th to 17th), but Michigan beat them head-to-head, won the Big 10 outright and was ranked 12th in the USA Today/ESPN poll, while Iowa was 12th in the AP Poll.

2005- Obviously 1v2 was the answer here. A 4-team playoff would’ve worked well here also. An 8-team playoff would’ve been disastrous with the choice between Georgia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Auburn, and maybe even LSU and WVU. 12-teams would’ve worked well.

So in 6 years, a 2-team championship was the best choice twice, a 4-team playoff would’ve been the best choice twice, an 8-team playoff would’ve been the best choice once, and one year was just an overall clusterfuck, and I think 1v2 was the best choice in that year.

And therein lies why I think the BCS is better than a playoff system. The BCS isn’t great by a long shot, but playoffs would definitly be worse, in my opinon.

39

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Nolecat and Tedro,

[/quote]

Good points. It’s good to have an intelligent debate for once…even if I am right;)

Here is my problem, college football tries too hard to get the perfect scenario. Enough with the rankings and which poll has who ranked. People try to make a mess out of it. A playoff works in every single sport. It will work in college football. I don’t understand the attitude that a “playoff won’t work.” The big problem…the NCAA is so concerned about getting the 2 best teams who can rake in the most ratings and money…and that is what it is about…money.

You can’t just pick 2 teams and proclaim that they are the best. The BCS thinks that if there only 2 undefeated teams, they must be the best. Well, lets test them…put them against the tops from other conferences. Earn your ranking in the regular season and defend it in the post season.

12 teams is too long, agree. 8 teams is perfect. Someone will always get left out. And, good point about the bottom 10 being so similar in records…but the top 8 is well representative of the elite. The argument of a “debate” between number 8 and 9 or 11 and 12 will happen. Someone will always get left out. But, trying to pluck 2 teams based on voter speculation and computer equations is absurd.

Anyway, good points!

40

[quote]nolecat wrote:
a good post [/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you said- I mean, those are pretty much the best arguments for a playoff system in college football.

Even more than anything, I just really like college football the way it is. I like the tradition of the conferences and I like the fact that the regular season just means so damn much. The only thing that would worry me about a playoff is that I think it might just diminish slightly the feverish intensity of the regular season.

Look at the Louisville-Rutgers game last night. It meant so damn much because if Louisville was basically playing for the right to play in the national championship. Now their season is basically down the drain because of one loss- I LOVE THAT!

If Louisville would have won, then Ohio State and Michigan would’ve been playing for the right to play in the national championship (as it is, the loser might just still get in). I think that is pretty cool that a regular season game can have so much damn importance.

I love college basketball as much or more than anybody else because of the tournament and how incredible that atmosphere is. But I love college football because the whole season is basically do or die. Different but equally cool in my eyes.

In any case, one thing I’m certain on is that the NCAA is going to do whatever system makes them the most money. That much I’m sure of!

41

Alright, I didn’t want to have to do this, but here it goes.

Tedro’s Playoff and Regular Season Reconstruction Proposal:

First of all, the reason I suggest a 12 team playoff instead of 8 teams is this: The conference champion from the 6 major conferences all deserve a berth. If Notre Dame has a good season they deserve a birth, and if a mid-major goes undefeated (Boise State this Year) they deserve a shot.

There’s your 8 teams and we have no at-large berths, so this year Michigan or OSU would miss out. Not fair when you consider they are arguable the top two teams.

Regular Season

Regular season begins the last weekend of August. All I-A teams will play 12 games against other I-A teams, with one bye week.

The final regular season games are played the Friday after Thanksgiving. The Big 12, SEC, ACC, MAC, and CUSA scrap their north/south east/west divisions. Each team plays every team in their conference once and has one non-conference game, to be played anytime during the season.

The other conferences also play each team in their conference once with non-conference games used to schedule 12 games. Notre Dame, Army, Navy, and Temple can continue as Indepedents. This will restore some old rivalries (Nebraska/Oklahoma) while creating a fair way to determine regular season conference champions using simple tie-breakers, since the regular season is essentially a round-robin tournament within each conference. NO CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES ARE PLAYED.

Bowl Games

The Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and BCS National Title will remain as BCS Bowls. The Cotton Bowl will be elevated to BCS status. The remaining 27 bowls will select their teams immediately following the regular season, not to select any of the 12 teams in the playoffs. More on the BCS bowls later.

Playoffs

The playoffs will begin the first weekend after the regular season, and continue for three weeks. At this point we will have our top two teams that will play in the BCS National Championship Game, the remaining 10 teams will play in the other 5 BCS bowls, paying careful attention to regional considerations (i.e. Big 10 vs. Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl) and making sure that no two teams that met in the playoffs will meet again in bowl game.

These 5 bowls will be played on New Years Day while the Championship will be played the first Monday after New Years. The other 27 bowls will start immediately after the playoffs end, and all will be finished by Dec. 31st.

Selecting the Playoff Teams

Regular Season Champions from the Big 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Pac-10, and Big East will get Automatic Berths. The highest ranked mid-major team (by BCS rankings) will get an automatic berth.

If any independent team finishes in the top 12 of the BCS, they will get an automatic berth. If two independents finish in the top 12, only the highest ranked team will get an automatic berth. Remaining playoff berths (the at-large teams) go to the next highest ranked teams until all twelve spots are filled. Seedings are determined by BCS rank.

Recap

This system maintains the current Bowl system, while making New Years Day Games and the Cotton Bowl meaningful again. Most teams will still play 12 or 13 games, with a maximum of 16, but usually no more than 15. (High schoolers play 13 games in 13 weeks, so I don’t think this is too many.)

The Football season will always be over by Jan. 8th. Some old rivalries are restored, and we don’t have to worry about Big 10 teams with easy schedules, since everybody plays everybody. My system also maintains tradition by keeping the
Polls, hopefully the Harris Poll would be scrapped and the AP would rejoin the BCS.

And I don’t believe the 13th ranked team will have much argument for a chance, due to all of the automatic berths. I really believe that this sort of system solves all the problems typically brought up by playoff opponents.

42

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
In any case, one thing I’m certain on is that the NCAA is going to do whatever system makes them the most money. That much I’m sure of![/quote]

That’s probably the only statement on this thread that nobody will argue, but don’t forget how much of a pull ABC/ESPN, and foxsports (BCS) have.