Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   College Football (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   B(C)S talk 2006 (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=15112)

MountaineerDave 10-19-2006 11:18 AM

Only, Alex, someone will still be whining even if the MNC game is a matchup of two unbeatens, just because people love to whine.

Tuberville will whine. It's his lot in life. Should there be three unbeatens (OSU, USC and WVU), WVU will whine. Not a lot. At least, I don't think the coach will whine that much, but fans will. I'll whine for a minute, but honestly, will just be happy with going 13-0 (whipping, say, Michigan in the Rose Bowl, or something like that :) )

As for WVU's coach's stance on a playoff, while I'm sure he reserves the right to change his mind should the Mountaineers be on the outside looking in at season's end, he's NOT a playoff guy. He's not a deeply committed person, either, though, so if it were worked out, he'd attend a playoff if he made it, but he doesn't generally support a playoff. (Also, he is asked on a weekly basis what to make of the betterment of the Big East, and usually responds with a "well, we keep winning games and they keep losing games. We just have to keep winning games and maybe those media types will start understanding we play football just as good here as anywhere." I think the "they" there is usually the ACC, but not definitively, and those media types refer to well... everyone not in the room with him.)
Yet.

tobynosker 10-19-2006 11:33 AM

My high-school football team went unbeaten last season and won the state title.

Following the state championship game, the media poll was released and it had my high-school ranked third in the state behind the two teams they beat on their way to the state championship.

My high school is 7-0 this year, averaging 41 points per game and only giving up six points per game.

They are not even ranked in the top-five in the state this season.

Why?

Because they are not the sexy pick.

Nearly every year in the B(C)S, we have teams that whine because they were simply left out by not being the sexy pick.

#99 10-19-2006 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex (Post 219985)
I'm hoping Southern Cal or West Virginia goes undefeated just so we don't have to hear another month-plus of whining about the BCS screwing teams over.

I hear what you're saying and, really, no one likes whining. But I'm hoping that either both or neither go undefeated for the very opposite reason. Lucking into a scenario where only two teams are unbeaten and have an undisputed right to the title game once every four years is hardly a success. In no other sport in the WORLD does this kind of nonsense exist.

And tacking on to what Tobynosker said, we should do away with preseason polls, too. "Sexiness" is one of those unspoken factors when trying to evaluate teams before a single game has been played.

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #99 (Post 219983)
If that's the case, then why would Michigan (assuming both WVU and L'ville have losses) even bother playing the regular season finale if it amounts to nothing more than an exhibition game? The point is that they already played each other.

Well...that's why the BCS is a sham and so are playoffs.

What you guys fail to understand is that if Ohio State was the lone unbeaten and several teams had one loss (Michigan, Cal, Tennessee, Texas, Auburn, Wisconsin for example), the Wolverines would be the only team that could honestly claim they too would be undefeated if they didn't have to play OSU in the regular season.

So let's say Ohio State beats Michigan and they put Auburn vs. the Buckeyes in the title game. Both Auburn and Michigan lost one game but Auburn has a shot at the national title despite losing to a weaker opponent than Michigan in the regular season.

How is that fair?

tobynosker 10-19-2006 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78
the Wolverines would be the only team that could honestly claim they too would be undefeated if they didn't have to play OSU in the regular season.
Texas, anyone?


And, if Auburn were to beat Ohio State in the National Championship game in this poorly produced, hypothetical situation, even the inferior Arkansas Razorbacks would have a right to whine.

#99 10-19-2006 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 (Post 220107)
Well...that's why the BCS is a sham and so are playoffs.

What you guys fail to understand is that if Ohio State was the lone unbeaten and several teams had one loss (Michigan, Cal, Tennessee, Texas, Auburn, Wisconsin for example), the Wolverines would be the only team that could honestly claim they too would be undefeated if they didn't have to play OSU in the regular season.

So let's say Ohio State beats Michigan and they put Auburn vs. the Buckeyes in the title game. Both Auburn and Michigan lost one game but Auburn has a shot at the national title despite losing to a weaker opponent than Michigan in the regular season.

How is that fair?

It's fair because there is tangible proof on the field that Ohio State is better than Michigan. They've had their shot. Unless that regular season finale is suddenly recognized as the national championship game and the season ends after that, it's pointless to have the rematch. Suppose Michigan does beat Ohio State in the rematch, what then? Michigan is unquestionably the best team in the land? I don't think so.

But it's the first sentence in your post that strikes me, Buckeye. If you're not a fan of either the B(C)S or playoffs, then... what are you for? A return to the polls???

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 03:38 PM

I really don't care about the polls either. I'm a staunch traditionalist.

The scenario you are describing happened in 1996 when Florida beat FSU in a rematch (though since they are Florida schools I assume no one had a problem with it and they are God's gift to football anyway).

Who do you recognize as the national champion that year?

You are punishing teams for having the lone unbeaten on their regular season schedule...no matter when that game falls. If that's the case, non-conference scheduling will get even weaker for all college football teams...though I don't see how that is mathematically possible for the SEC.

tobynosker 10-19-2006 03:47 PM

KB, I am starting to get the feeling that buckeye likes to ignore all of my opinions on matters, as well.


And since I couldn't give two ****s about getting involved in a "Big Ten scheduling is tougher than SEC scheduling" debate, can someone just tell me that if Texas and Michigan's only losses this season come at the hands of Ohio State, why should the Longhorns lose out on a chance to play for the National Title over the Wolverines?

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 03:52 PM

Nice try toby. You edited your previous post at 3:39 PM to add a quote of mine along with "Texas anyone?" My last post was at 3:38 PM...a minute before you edited and added. Your original post didn't have my quote or "Texas anyone?" in it.

Not that I would have answered you anyway. It's posts like that (#23) which make me avoid you. Please quit stalking me.

tobynosker 10-19-2006 04:00 PM

Actually, I made a spelling correction at 3:39 and had previously added the "Texas, anyone?" after my original post but prior to #99's comment.

But, thanks for the reply!

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobynosker (Post 220130)
Actually, I made a spelling correction at 3:39 and had previously added the "Texas, anyone?" after my original post but prior to #99's comment.

But, thanks for the reply!

You're welcome. Now please stop stalking me.

Richard the Lionheart 10-19-2006 05:52 PM

I personally believe that if there is one unbeaten and only one, a title game is unnecessary. I've talked about this all before, but that's why I'm in favor of going back to the traditional bowl games, with an added feature. If there are two undefeated Big 6 conference teams after the bowl games, they play. This game would only happen when necessary. It wouldn't be an every year thing. Home field in this game would go to the team with the best strength of schedule. In the event of three undefeated teams, the team with the highest strength of sched. would play the winner of a game between the other two on its home field for the NC. That should settle all disputes, and leave us most of the time with all of the regional traditions that made college football what it is--with the added feature that it would encourage teams to schedule harder non-conference schedules. And oh yeah, a game like this would be bigger than the Super Bowl.

#99 10-19-2006 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 (Post 220121)
I really don't care about the polls either. I'm a staunch traditionalist.

I don't know what this means. Little help?

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 08:28 PM

It means I believe in college football regionalization...as the game was in the 60s, 70s, and the early 80s.

I don't see any need for a playoff, the BCS, or a national champion...mythical or "real."

Alex 10-19-2006 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 220170)
I personally believe that if there is one unbeaten and only one, a title game is unnecessary. I've talked about this all before, but that's why I'm in favor of going back to the traditional bowl games, with an added feature. If there are two undefeated Big 6 conference teams after the bowl games, they play. This game would only happen when necessary. It wouldn't be an every year thing. Home field in this game would go to the team with the best strength of schedule. In the event of three undefeated teams, the team with the highest strength of sched. would play the winner of a game between the other two on its home field for the NC. That should settle all disputes, and leave us most of the time with all of the regional traditions that made college football what it is--with the added feature that it would encourage teams to schedule harder non-conference schedules. And oh yeah, a game like this would be bigger than the Super Bowl.

I agree completely. The +1 game is the best thing that could happen to college football.

But we can't have it. It will be too difficult on the players. So we can have an extra regular season game but it wouldn't be possible for 2-3 teams to play an extra game or two to determine a true national champion? Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.