Well, after a satisfying day of college football it appears that USC could end up ranking number 1 in both the AP and USA Today/Coach's Poll and STILL not get to play in the national championship game. Because that makes perfect sense. I mean, plenty of teams in many, many sports lose the game or series right before the championship game. There was the...well, let's see in 19...ok, nothing like that is really coming to mind...oh, wait! This has happened before when some team got blown out a couple of years ago in the Big 12 title game and still ended up in the national championship game. Nebraska, IIRC. Wow, that's creepy. This proves that money and arbitrariness make the world go round.
If you have to argue about who is better, and the convincing-ness of your argument could ACTUALLY AFFECT the game schedule, then something is wrong with the sport. I mean, I heard a guy on ESPN (Rece Davis, for you sports nerds out there) point to how many yards USC gave up today as his evidence that they shouldn't go to the Sugar Bowl. Hmm, last time I checked, the only number that matters is how many points you have at the end of the game. Does the team that scores the most points still win the game? What the hell? thank goodness for this-} Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I totally agree. K-State got the shaft a few years back. This year, though, they can't deny us the berth, since BCS rules state "The Big 12 champion shalt go to a major bowl game."
I do feel for any school shrugged off by this arbitrary, ineffective, and money-centered system.
The Wildcats did an excellent job, the Sooners (my team) played with no fire or emotion. However the Sooners were beaten by a ranked team, while both LSU and USC were beaten by unranked teams so the schedule will still be much stronger for OU.
I'm going to have fun watching it all plays out. Maybe this will indeed be the end of the BCS as the result. However because of the BCS the Sooners may still play for the National Championship so its a double edged sword.
AJ
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
My only regret is not seeing the game. But I do get to watch the Chiefs-Broncos game tomorrow, so I'm mollified.
If the Sooners play for the title game, and KSU plays in the Fiesta bowl, then the Big 12 has excellent representation, so that's good to see.
Now, which team is going to play OU, cause I'm ready to root for OU this time. Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, one of our local sportscasters here slipped into editorial mode on last night's broadcast and said that they need to take the C out of BCS, and then they'd have it about right. From what I've heard about their system (or non-system) of determing who goes to bowl games, I think he's probably right on this one.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Yeah, unfortunately, LSU, USC, or OU will probably get shortchanged somehow. Right now, they're thinking USC, which will go to the Rose Bowl. Looks like a split national title this year, which is even further evidence of the need for a fair and balanced system.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Until they have at least an 8-team playoff (preferably 16-team), there is no IA (or whatever the “major” division is called) national college football champion. There’s an opinion poll combined with faulty computer models about what makes a football team good.
Unless UVa wins the BCS championship game. Then it’s totally legitimate.
Dagonee
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
But who'd go to the 8-team playoff? Would we have a massive tournament starting at the beginning of the season? Or would it be based again on the polls?
There's no legit way to get a "real" national champion that's been discovered yet. The BCS is a step in the right direction, but it's obviously lacking.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Anyone remember Miami not getting a chance against Okalahoma because of the BCS. And I've been saying since then that the only thing wrong with the BCS is the C.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Carrie said: But who'd go to the 8-team playoff? Would we have a massive tournament starting at the beginning of the season? Or would it be based again on the polls?
There's no legit way to get a "real" national champion that's been discovered yet. The BCS is a step in the right direction, but it's obviously lacking.
There are arguments about the bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament every year, but few people ever think that the anyone left out would actually win the tournament and is thus being deprived at a realistic shot at the national championship.
I prefer 16, which would be 4 rounds. Knock the regular season back to 10 games, and only 4 teams would play 13 games. More teams than that play 13 games now.
We might have arguments about the 12th through 25th spot or so, but there’d be a lot less controversy than there is now. As it stands now, late-season losses hurt much more than early-season losses when there is no legitimate reason for them to do so.
Dagonee
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
Dagonee, you're on the money, although an 11-game season would be more palatable to those who wish to have the regular season to show their goods, and thus get into the tournament. They could even give automatic bids to the winners of the conference title, kind of like they do now. 8 major conference winners plus 8 at-large teams. A bonus to this is that the arguing would be long over by the time the season ended, instead of just getting warmed up. Damn the money men at the major conferences.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Unless UVa wins the BCS championship game. Then it’s totally legitimate.
Hmmm.... Are you a wahoo Dagonee?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Even a four team playoff would go a long way in the current situation. Have OU play Michigan and USC play LSU, and then a championship game from the winners of those games.
Maybe this will be the death knell for the current BCS arrangement.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hmmm.... Are you a wahoo Dagonee?
Twice over, now. Wahoowa!
Goooooooo Hoooooooooos!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Finally, someone with reasonable sports affiliations.
<sings Good Ol' Song>
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Why Michigan? Why not FSU or Miami? It would have to be 8 teams. The 6 major conference winners (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, SEC) and two at large teams. The two at large teams could be decided by committee like basketball or two highest ranked BCS teams not automatically in.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think a four team playoff would be better than nothing, and not extend the season too much longer than it already is. I personally think one of the reasons why the OU players didn't do very well is because they have finals next week. And while a lot of them are takign easy ish classes some aren't. And either way they still have to pass them!
aJ
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
A four team playoff would create more controversey than it would solve for. How can you leave out half of the major conference champions?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
but at least you would have the top four according to the rankings playing each other, regardless of conference. IN the current system lots of conferences are getting left out of the BCS but they are still getting bowl games, so it wouldn't really change anything.
AJ
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I went to USC undergraduate. Marcus White's girlfriend was in a couple of my classes. I think there's a lab somewhere responsible for her looks.
My first introduction to the USC football team was when I went to purchase my books for all of my science classes at the USC bookstore "science annex." It was closed. It was closed because the cafeteria was set up for a special steak dinner for the football team. And to get to the bookstore, you had to go "near" the cafeteria. God forbid a science "nerd" should stray into the cafeteria by mistake and maybe smell some steak.
I knew right then that there were some skewed priorities at that school. Went to a grand total of one football game while at that school. They suck bigtime.
They gave us OJ too!
Best thing about that football program was the marching band. And that's only because Fleetwood Mac used them on the Tusk album.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
How can you justify putting in Michigan over FSU or Miami though? How can you justify Oklahoma when they didn't even win their conference. How can a team be the best in the nation but not in the conference? At the same time you can't justify KSU over a numer of teams. What would you do with last year and the slew of one loss teams? How can you leave major conference champions out of a playoff? Its absurd.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
The first thing they need to do is make conference membership mandatory. (Sorry all you Notre Dame fans) Also mandatory should be conference championship games. !20 Division 1 teams makes 10 twelve team conferences. The conference champions are assured a spot in the playoff. Then there are six at large bids that can be given out to good teams who could not win their conference. This way the mid-major conferences are not being entirely left out of the picture, but the at large bids would probably aid the major conferences who are more likely to have more than one national title contender. Ultimately, until teams are allowed to earn their way into the title game, there will never be a national champion that is not tainted by completely subjective opinion polls. ( That being said, I am a diehard Sooner fan and have a whole string of justifications for why they should be playing in the Sugar Bowl. So as not to derail this thread, I will keep them to myself.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
you can justify Oklahoma based on their record. Only one loss. They lost to a ranked team, unlike USC or LSU who lost to unranked teams. Yes it was an ugly loss but it is unlikely that an unranked team on *any given saturday* would have been able to beat OU in the psyhcolgical way that K. State did.
Also this proves all along that Texas has been way overrated.
AJ
[ December 07, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Please forgive the following as it is a departure from my usual class and sense of decorum. . . . . . . . . . . TEXAS SUCKS!!!!! Honk em Horns. . . . . . . . Thank you for your patience. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think they have some of the best analysis around.
Unfortunately now, as a Sooner I have to hold my nose and root for Michicgan to beat USC, when my geographical leanings are all for USC and extremely anti-Michigan!
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wussy Actor, when were you at OU? I was there from 97 to 01 though I graduated in 00.
AJ
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Unfortunately I was not able to attend OU. They didn’t offer me as much money and weren’t as willing to address my educational wishes in their theater department. (They really have no interest in theater education majors.) I went to UCO in Edmond. I’ve just been a Sooner fan all my life. Are you from Oklahoma?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No I wasn't from OK. I was one of those dreaded National Scholars that they parade on the football field once a year to give lip service to academics. But the price was right, they basically paid me to go there, and they are a good engineering school, so I can't complain. The first couple years were definite culture shock as I came from Southern California. BUt I made friends there that will last a lifetime. And I have a much greater appreciation and respect for the state, even though I left it to get a better job.
I like a truly large city like Chicago better, but I wouldn't mind living in Oklahoma if circumstance put me there again.
AJ
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
I lived in Houston for two years and absolutely hated it. OKC is IMHO about as big as a city can be and still be friendly. My family is here and that’s why I came back, but I love it and decided to create my dream job here. Now I wouldn’t think of leaving. (Except, of course, when I get that long awaited phone call from Ashley Judd that she’s come to her senses and wants me to move to LA so she can have my children.)
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
And that’s how you derail a thread. Sheesh, and I finally found some hatrackers who actually wanted to talk about football.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I would like to point out that the smaller football divisions (NCAA-II, IIRC) have been doing playoffs for quite a while. I'm not familiar with their system, but why wouldn't it work for the Division 1 teams?
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I agree that the BSC is a step in the right direction but by no means is it the final destination. I would love to see a playoff but it will never happen because of all the money wrapped up in the bowls. I'm not smart enough to figure out a better way but I love it when things like K-Sate beating OU happen becaus ethen things get shook up, every one cries about it, the commentators debate, and hopefully the system gets a closer look.
My one complain is a little off topic but I am really disapointed in the fiesta bowl this year. I'm a huge OSU fan and was really looking forward to the rematch between OSU and Miami at the Orange bowl. Not to take anything away from K-State because they are a good team and I think it will be a great game but... where's the drama? OSU and Miami rematches a great championship game. and whats up with Miami FSU. They play every year and yea, it's a big rivalry but nothing special. I would never want to play Michigan in a bowl game because that game is something different. It's about the regular season not the post season. I feel the same thing about the FSU, Miami match up. The drama just isn't there.
Oh, well. It's still a BSC game and should still be very exciting. That is definately something after the horrible year we've had with offense.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Okay... how about this simple fix for the moment? Only league champions can go to the BCS (meaning teams who win their championship game or teams who finish first in divisions with no championship game.) In no situation should a team that can't even win their conference be in the national championship, no?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
WHat if OU mops the floor with LSU and USC loses to Michigan? Then they would be the only one loss team left, other than in the baby conferences. Even if they didn't win the big 12 championship, do they deserve the national champinoship then?
ONe of the weird things about the OU game was that Bob Stoops smiled almost the entire time. We were really wondering what was up his sleeve. Or if he wanted them to do crappy enough that he could tear them a new one for the next four weeks.
AJ
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote:In no situation should a team that can't even win their conference be in the national championship, no?
I would agree if everyone involved was held to the same standard. Case in point: If Oklahoma is held to the same standard as USC, they won the Big 12, even with the humiliating (holds his head in shame) loss to K-State. Until conference championships are either done away with or made mandatory, even the quick fix is not any more fair than the current system.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think there's way more money for the schools to be made in a playoff system than in the bowl system. There'd be a lot more attention paid to it by fans of non-participating teams (or teams that lose in early rounds) because every game would be meaningful to the championship.
Right now, people care about their own teams' bowl games, plus the national championship, plus any games that happen to involve a team they find interesting. The bowls have created this self-fulfilling prophecy of credibility that fans have no intrinsic loyalty. If there were an alternative, fans would flock to it.
I think the playoffs would be considered the real deal like the NCAA basketball tournament is now and the remaining bowl games be the NIT.
Dagonee
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Oh well. Basketball is more important than football anyway.
::Counts days till March Madness::
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Hey, Bob...that sort of special, "celebrity" treatment of athletes doesn't just go on at the big-time sports schools. When I went to Fresno City College, I soon discovered that the athletes on the traveling teams (those that play other schools) get to register for classes before registration officially begins. Excuse me?
I'll quit now, before I go on my usual rant on this subject. That is all.
Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
The players would rather have a playoff. The fans would rather have a playoff. The school administrators of the six major conferences don't allow it because they think they make more money under the current system. This is disgraceful, even if true. What's worse, it is not true.
They could set up a 16-team playoff, just as Dagonee suggests and just as they do in Divisions I-AA, II, and III. Invite all conference champions plus five at-large teams. The television rights would sell for literally billions of dollars, it would be wonderfully entertaining to watch, and we could finally crown a legitimate national champion.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is an interesting tidbit:
quote:You wonder if Bob Stoops' crew even had to show up to grab a BCS spot. Judging from OU remaining No. 1 after a 35-7 shellacking against Kansas State, the answer is a resounding no.
The computer nerds cut Stoops & Co. huge slack. But the real winner is LSU coach Nick Saban, still positioned to collect on a contract clause requiring the school to "pay him at least $1 more than the highest-paid college football coach" within 30 days of winning a BCS title.
So the themes of the Sugar Bowl are two: redemption and money.
I think Bob Stoops is the highest paid football coach in the NCAA which makes the whole thing ironic.
AJ
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Should have a 4 team play off.
Big 12, Big 10, SEC Champs should get a spot, with one At Large. All the rest of the conferances are small potatoes next to those three.
Interestingly, Oklahoma would NOT have the Big 12 big under this formula. K-State would.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
small potatoes or not every conference deserves equal representation. That is what makes march madness so much fun. The small schools getting the chance to fight for it all. To me college athletics are the truest form of the respected sports. The players (at least the great majority) are their for the love of the game, the thrill of competition. That is why a play off would rock! Do you have any idea how exciting it would be?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Pixiest the Pac-10 would truly dislike your system.
I agree the criteria for winning a conference should be the same for all of the "big" conferences. Because if OU was held to the same standard as USC (The Pac-10) or the Big 10 they'd be the conference champions. Either that or USC should have to play a championship game like everybody else.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Pixiest said: Big 12, Big 10, SEC Champs should get a spot, with one At Large. All the rest of the conferances are small potatoes next to those three.
Hah! Next year the ACC will have Miami, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, which have won 9 championships (such as they are in college football) since 1981. That’s better than 1 in 3.
The point of college sports is that there’s complete turnover every 4 years – history shouldn’t matter.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Even the Big East recently is still deserving. Miami alone has won five titles since 1981 and there have been recent years when Virginia Tech and Miami have been dominant. Or look at the Big 12 last year when you had Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and Nebraska all expected to be top 10 teams and ended up being busts. When's the last time the SEC even won a title? With Miami, BC, and Virginia Tech in the ACC next season the ACC could very well be the most dominant conference in football.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
The Pixiest, you've got to be kidding me right? I love how everyone supporting the SEC continues to suggest that LSU was more impressive over the long haul and had more quality wins than USC. How is that? How do you measure it? USC had an infinitely tougher out of conference schedule and played Auburn when they were a preseason #1 and thus undefeated and had everything to play for, LSU got them when they were down and out and only playing for pride, USC beat Notre Dame 45-14 after Notre Dame had beaten a very good Pitt team the previous week and was still very much a bowl contender with a 2-3 record, and all three losses to top flight teams who are all bowl bound if I remember right. USC also played BYU who was undefeated at the time and coming off an impressive double digit win over Georgia Tech. LSU played the greatness that is Louisiana Monroe, Western Illinois, and the Pac-10's basement dwelling Arizona who registered double digit losses in all of it's games save four.
USC worked two of the top three teams in it's conference (Oregon State, and Washington State), registered it's only loss of the year in triple overtime to a Cal team that registered one of the two best offensive performances at K-State all year in the season opener when K-State was a national title contender, and lets also remember that Cal has been undergoing the fastest turnaround in the country from 0 wins in 2001, to a bowl contender the past two years, and they have a coach that is second to Bob Stoops in terms of being most sought after in the country. Finally, USC beat every team on it's schedule by 20 or more points except BYU (35-18) and Cal (34-38). Btw, the Pac-10 sent six teams to bowl games, all with pretty solid records save UCLA whose had a tremendously off year, not exactly chopped liver, my conference (though I don't expect a sterling bowl record this year, as I still think the conference had a weak year, like the SEC, simply not enough cream at the top, just USC, and then clearly a second tier bunch with Washington State, Oregon State, Oregon, and Cal) now is it?
LSU is definitely impressive, but the greatness of the SEC and LSU is totally dependent on whether you simply think it's a good conference because it "is", rather than because there is proof, this very year. The results don't suggest this was a great year for the conference. Tennessee had a horrible loss, in addition to it's one other loss, Auburn had it's share of problems, Alabama was the worst it's been in years, Arkansas was inconsistent, Florida registered perhaps it's worst season in 15 years and yet beat LSU convincingly, and Ole Miss is no dynamo. Why exactly is the SEC so great? Because they schedule the weak sisters of the poor like K-State in their out of conference games? Because they well, they just are? Or because their fans say they are? How many National Champions are coming out of there lately? Well, um, not many. Florida won one several years ago, so did Tennessee, but other than that, there haven't exactly been boatloads of National Titles.
I don't say this to suggest that the Pac-10 is better, it isn't. The Pac-10 has featured severe weaknesses at defense for years, but this "All Hail the SEC" or "The Big 12" is really a bunch of hot air when it comes down to it. The truth is, the Pac-10, no matter how good it's top team is, rarely ever gets enough AP, and Coaches Poll support to even get a chance to show what they can do in a title game, so actually figuring out whether the conference is truly soft, or not, is really open to debate, and a debate that's never been allowed, particularly recently in the cases of Oregon and USC. Each season is an entity in itself, and the only consistency I see right now is Oregon getting screwed out of a title game in 2001 and USC getting screwed out of one in 2003 and the only reason I can think of to justify this is reputation, and an east coast writers bias. Them's the facts. Oregon kicked Colorado up and down the field all day a month after that Colorado team killed Nebraska, and then saw that Nebraska team rewarded over a better Oregon and Colorado team for the BCS title game. The Same happened that year with Oregon State, unappreciated, and disrespected, they were handed a traditional East Coast Media Favorite in Notre Dame, and a Vegas point spread to boot. I made plenty of money that day on Oregon State. Now it's USC getting screwed.
Handing the BCS to specific conferences because of rep is utter non-sense. The Best way would be a 12 or 16 team playoff, with 1-4 at large bids, and a shortened schedule of say, 11 games.
The funniest thing in all this, is that I still think Oklahoma's the best team in the country. And Michigan is probably playing the best ball right now, and USC is the only team I think that could beat Oklahoma in the BCS game and LSU is a patsy in waiting for an ornery Oklahoma team. I could be wrong though. LSU's defense could shut down Oklahoma's offense as it is lacking a good QB and that weakness could be exploited. It's an odd thing, to think that Oklahoma and USC could beat LSU, LSU and Oklahoma could probably beat Michigan, and Michigan and Oklahoma in my view probably have what it takes to beat USC. In my view, there is no true national champion no matter what happens. If LSU beats Oklahoma they avoided USC and hence aren't a true national champ (and besides, they also managed to avoid Tennessee, whom, over the long haul, were probably along with Florida the true best teams in the SEC), if USC beats Michigan the same situation is true, and if Oklahoma beats LSU, and Michigan beat USC it doesn't really matter because Oklahoma avoided USC. What a mess, too bad the bowls and conferences are making too much money off this currently to see whats right in front of their eyes.
Additionally spare me the Oklahoma and LSU played a conference title game and USC didn't argument that some may be inclined to give. They did that for money, and money alone, to fill their coffers and as such take the risk that they may miss out and should miss out on a title game if they lose that. You make a deal with the devils money, sometimes their will be a snake in that bag of money, and it's an absolute travesty that Oklahoma didn't pay the price for that fact. Besides, anyone with eyes, knows USC would work anyone in the Pac-10 in a conference title game even if there was one.
Rant Over.
[ December 10, 2003, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: graywolfe ]
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote:LSU's defense could shut down Oklahoma's offense as it is lacking a good QB and that weakness could be exploited.
Lacking a good QB? Maybe the third team is lacking a good QB. OU’s first team has a Heisman contender if you hadn’t noticed. Maybe not as strong a contender as before the K-State game, but you can’t seriously write off the accomplishments of the other 12 games based on one sub-par performance. And he did throw for 300 + yards in that game. Lacking a good running back I will buy. But if Jason White is not a good QB, then there aren’t any good QBs in the country this year.
quote:You make a deal with the devils money, sometimes their will be a snake in that bag of money, and it's an absolute travesty that Oklahoma didn't pay the price for that fact.
I’m interested what price you think Oklahoma should have to pay for making it to the championship game of their league. The real question is why should Oklahoma be penalized for winning 12 games in a row and THEN losing more than USC and LSU should be for losing early in the season. For all it’s problems, and for all the whining about the computer polls, that is one problem with the old system that is closer to being solved. Its not a travesty that OU is going to the Sugar Bowl. It’s a travesty that in the current system, three teams had reasonable claim to only two spots in the title game. In that kind of system, someone is always going to get screwed.
quote:Besides, anyone with eyes, knows USC would work anyone in the Pac-10 in a conference title game even if there was one.
That's what everyone in the country said about Oklahoma and the Big 12 till Saturday night.
[ December 10, 2003, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Everybody's forgetting about the other 1-loss team that got screwed over by the BCS.
Boise State!
Man, you guys are just lucky the Pac-10 refs blew that call at Oregon State, else we'd be undefeated!
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Boise State...
(Tries to muffle his laughter behind his hand) Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
Hey, now, don't dis Boise St. until you've seen 'em play. Northern Illinois or TCU they ain't. And I mean that in a good way.
Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
quote: What a mess, too bad the bowls and conferences are making too much money off this currently to see whats right in front of their eyes.
Let us dispel the myth that colleges make more money from the bowl system than they would with a playoff.
The BCS bowls will pay out around $100 million to all participants this year. All the other bowls combined add up to about another $100 million. In comparison, the current 11-year contract with CBS to broadcast the March Madness basketball tournament guarantees the NCAA a minimum of six BILLION dollars - that's TV alone, before adding in ticket sales, promos, etc. The TV rights for a Division I-A football tournament would almost certainly go for even more. (Football is a bigger TV draw than basketball. The NFL's TV contract is triple the value of the NBA's, for example.)
Every year they don't have a playoff, the NCAA Division I-A schools leave hundreds of millions of dollars, very likely upwards of a billion dollars on the table.
Posted by Lyra (Member # 6014) on :
I am not sure if there is a feasible way to determine the true national champion in one year. The players are college students, and therefore can't play a TON of games... plus, the season fo good playing weather isn't that long, expecially in some of the northern states. and... I just added the wave because we're talking about college football Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:
LSU's defense could shut down Oklahoma's offense as it is lacking a good QB and that weakness could be exploited. ------------------------------------------------- "Lacking a good QB? Maybe the third team is lacking a good QB. OU’s first team has a Heisman contender if you hadn’t noticed. Maybe not as strong a contender as before the K-State game, but you can’t seriously write off the accomplishments of the other 12 games based on one sub-par performance. And he did throw for 300 + yards in that game. Lacking a good running back I will buy. But if Jason White is not a good QB, then there aren’t any good QBs in the country this year."
I'm not writing them off based on one performance, I'm saying that the QB play they get is good enough to help them win, not great enough to be a difference maker. He's simply not at the level of the other more elite QB's in this country (though I'll grant that there aren't many: Manning, Roethlisberger, and Pickett, and maybe Schaub and Greene strike me as the only one's drawing strong interest from the NFL as starter caliber players), he strikes me as a system QB who carries out his coaches plans, minimizes mistakes, and tries not to stretch himself too much. He doesn't strike me as a QB who can take over a game, if Oklahoma needs him too, a QB who can rally the troops to victory when things are falling around him. Btw, the Heisman aspect means nothing to me, any team that is vying for the National Championship will have it's QB named as a Heisman candidate and/or leading contender, it's de rigeure in college football. Is being the QB on a national title contender impressive? Sure, but it doesn't mean your a great QB, in the end it can just mean your a Big Game away from pulling a Testaverde and exposing yourself as merely the placeholder for the QB job for a team that merely needs competance, not excellence, at that position. He didn't show me anything last week in the biggest game of his life. Anyway, perhaps I was a bit too harsh but my point was that Oklahoma has the sort of offense that is balanced, but can be shut down if they're facing a truly elite defense, LSU has that kind of defense so they might be able to pull it off, so does USC, but USC's defense isn't as mentally tough (they pull their foot off the gas during arse-whuppings, not a positive thing to do. When you've got a team down, you squash it and grind it into the dirt, dont necessairly run up the score, but don't ease up either, that's how leads are choked away (like Florida-FSU seven or eight years ago), and that's how players get hurt. Anyway that was my main point. I don't see the same difference makers on Oklahoma's offense that I see on Michigan's and USC's (LSU also is a bit lacking in that. They have a nice offense, an effective one, but they strike me as a team lacking in top drawer, unstoppable players)squads.
"You make a deal with the devils money, sometimes their will be a snake in that bag of money, and it's an absolute travesty that Oklahoma didn't pay the price for that fact." ------------------------------------------------- "I’m interested what price you think Oklahoma should have to pay for making it to the championship game of their league. The real question is why should Oklahoma be penalized for winning 12 games in a row and THEN losing more than USC and LSU should be for losing early in the season. For all it’s problems, and for all the whining about the computer polls, that is one problem with the old system that is closer to being solved. Its not a travesty that OU is going to the Sugar Bowl. It’s a travesty that in the current system, three teams had reasonable claim to only two spots in the title game. In that kind of system, someone is always going to get screwed."
I don't disagree with that. My problem is that Oklahoma not only lost, they got absolutely rolled and they were supposed to be the class of their conference. Oklahoma was definitely the best team over the long haul of the season, but if you're not the winner of your conference, then you can't be in the title game, period. It sucks, but that's the price you pay for agreeing to to have a conference title game after the season is over. The Big 12's teams entered that Devil's Bargain out of greed, and now, in large part due to conference reputation rather than anything else, a Big 12 team is being rewarded for failure and that is a travesty.
USC won it's conference, indeed over the past two seasons the only team that has managed to consistently cause USC trouble is Cal. Additionally, the team that would win the right to play USC in the Conference Title Game the Pac-10 wisely do not have would be Washington State, whom they beat 43-16 less than a month ago. I imagine the result might be less impressive on a neutral site, but I can't see them beating USC.
K-State is a difference case entirely. They were a national title contender when the season opened, and likely would have stayed with one if injuries hadn't felled many of the teams best players two months ago, and all their loses were by 7 or less as well. K-State is also a team that Oklahoma managed to avoid during the regular season, and thus is not comparable to an imagined Washington State-USC rematch where we at least have a record of what happened the first time (and it wasn't remotely close). LSU suffers also in this way, as it managed to avoid Tennessee altoghether, certainly one of the two or three best teams in the conference, and Florida, who spanked them in the regular season, lost a chance for a title game appearance do to a tiebreaker, a two fold friendly result for that team.
I still believe Oklahoma is the class of the country, one of the best defenses (except last weekend) in the country, and a consistently productive offense, which is more than can be said for USC (who has a great defense that seems to lack intensity at times) and LSU which is exceptional on defense, and good on offense, but not at Oklahoma's level in the latter. The problem is that Oklahoma lost, and lost exceptionally badly. LSU lost badly as well, but has gotten steadily better since and USC lost, but only did so in triple overtime to a team that gave K-State infinitely more trouble than Oklahoma did, and did so when K-State was a title contender, rather than a team just hoping to get a more favorable bow payoff (Cal had 378 yards through the air, and 4 TD's against 1 pick. Only the running game failed to get started and that's because Tedford hadn't realized what he had in Echemando yet). Cal is no patsy. They aren't a great team yet, but for anyone who wants to toss them in with the likes of Iowa State, Northwestern, Kentucky and the like is out of their minds. No team has more rapidly ascended the college football scene in terms of admiration recently than Cal, which had been a moribund program until Tedford arrived to supplant the inept Holmoe.
quote:
Besides, anyone with eyes, knows USC would work anyone in the Pac-10 in a conference title game even if there was one. -------------------------------------------------
"That's what everyone in the country said about Oklahoma and the Big 12 till Saturday night."
Yeah, but in the case of Oklahoma it wasn't exactly legitament. K-State was considered a title contender when the year started. No one had any clue what to expect from Washington State when the year started. K-State played impressive football throughout the year when healthy, and didn't get to match up with Oklahoma during the regular season so those assuming that K-State would be a lamb to the slaughter simply weren't assessing the facts. Beating Oklahoma should have been reasonably perceived as unlikely, but not nearly as unlikely as it would be for Washington State to beat a USC team that USC squashed a mere month ago.
Anyway, this stinks, and I want my bloody playoff . I can only imagine how amazing it could be, particularly if you could get 16 teams, with four at large bids or something like that. Right now the Pac-10 continually get screwed simply because they aren't held in esteem, in no large part because East and Mid-West writers tend to ignore the games since they usually start between 6:30 and 10:30pm on the East Coast and also simply out of a basic east coast bias. This isn't to suggest that the Pac-10 routinely build powerhouses that are national title contenders. They don't. The Pac-10 probably didn't put together more than four or five truly national title contender quality teams between 1980 and 1995, but since around '95 the Pac-10 has been getting better and better, and while this was an off year for the conference as a whole, USC was clearly as good as the very best around the country this year and more than deserved a title game invite.
[ December 10, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: graywolfe ]
Posted by LR (Member # 5109) on :
Its been awhile since I posted...but it's time for a view from an LSU student and avid LSU football fan since birth. The BCS is a horrid system. Me and many fellow students would prefer a playoff system with the 8 team format(featuring the 6 division champions and a lottery allowing in a second chance to two of the almost champions). USC should be up against LSU, I mean if you cant play for real in the division championship game, you shouldn't have the honor to play for the national title... On a slightly more political side an LSU win against those Sooners attracts more attention and talent to the good ole Tigers. Sorry USC, ya'll are great but the Sooners are a bigger, badder opponent and crushing them will get LSU the respect it deserves and earns. Viva la Saban.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Lottery? How about two highest ranked teams that didn't get an auto-bid. Although next year the Big East is going to be bordering on mid-major.
Posted by LR (Member # 5109) on :
A lottery sounds more fun...you know thy put the team's names in a phone booth air jet thing. Then they throw in a midget and a hot petite brunette and they each grab a name slip. The whole thing is televised and another reason to enjoy football with friends...and drinking games.
Posted by LR (Member # 5109) on :
Since no one's argued against the midget/brunette lottery I guess that means it's a go? Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
Graywolfe, I don't see how you can determine that USC is the most deserving team. USC, LSU, and Oklahoma all had one loss. USC's loss was the closest, but they also lost to the worst team. Maybe Cal's not all that bad, but they still had six losses, and if they faced either Florida or Kansas State in a bowl game they would be about a two-touchdown underdog. (They already lost to Kansas State by two touchdowns.)
I'm also not buying the notion that a pervasive bias by the writers against West Coast teams is a major part of the problem. The reason there is a perception that USC is getting screwed this year and that Oregon was screwed a couple years ago is that the AP writers ranked both Pac-10 teams higher than the computers did. The writers' biggest bias is against teams that lose late in the season rather than early in the season.
The bottom line is that you have three teams that played comparable schedules and wound up with the same record. Any system for picking two of the three to play for the "national championship" is inherently arbitrary, and cannot produce a legitimate national championship.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It wasn't just the AP writers, it was the coaches too. And Miami got screwed also. Not only were the ranked over FSU in the AP and USA Today/ESPN Polls but they had beaten FSU earlier in the season. Furthermore, USC didn't get screwed out of the #2 spot, they got screwed out of the #1 spot. Now that's screwed up.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
See, I think a late-season loss should count for more. It's one thing to lose a game at the beginning of a season. While you're still all learning to work as a team and forming chemistry, anything can happen. A rookie punt returner can get the jitters and miss a catch. A sophomore receiver can still be a little fuzzy on his routes.
If you lose your last game of the season, there are rarely such excuses. Both teams know what to expect from each other, and are performing like well-oiled machines, and the better one will usually win.
I count a game 4 USC loss to a pretty good Cal team as less important than a last game rout by a good K-State.
But I still think the BSU-TCU Fort Worth Bowl is the championship game. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I look at Oklahoma's margin of victory.
Posted by V Aaron (Member # 6012) on :
These points are all debatable; there is no right or wrong answer. This is why any system that selects two teams to play in the "championship game" is arbitrary and not a legitimate championship.
An eight-team playoff would take care of the problem when you have a few teams at the top of the rankings with comparable resumes, but would leave many of the other problems with the BCS system in place. In particular, smaller conference teams would be given no opportunity to compete. Somebody like Frisco's Boise State team could go undefeated and still not finish in the top eight.
A 16-team playoff is the way to go. That allows every Division I-A conference champion to compete, along with five at-large teams. Since the at-large teams would almost always come from the major conferences, those big six conferences would share eleven playoff bids and a lot more money than they make now. Select fifteen of the biggest bowl games (all at warm-weather sites) to host the playoff games. Remaining bowl games could still be played, between teams that didn't make the playoffs. Those games would be no less meaningful than they are now. Plus, you could schedule several of them on New Year's Day, along with perhaps the two playoff semifinal games, and maintain the tradition of lots of college football on New Year's Day.
As for Lyra's concern that this would be too many games for college students, that same argument against a playoff was often heard back when everybody played a maximum of eleven games plus a bowl game. Now the maximum has been increased to twelve, and a host of "kickoff classics" and conference championship games have been added to that. Most of this year's bowl teams will have played thirteen games, and several will have played fourteen. An eleven-game schedule plus a 16-team playoff would not increase the burdens on these players. Anyway, the very concept that Division I-A football players are more concerned about their studies than players in Division I-AA or II or III (all of which have playoffs), or athletes in every other NCAA sport for that matter (ditto), is rather ludicrous.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
K-State crushes OU 35-7 ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I do get to watch the Chiefs-Broncos game tomorrow, so I'm mollified.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)