Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Collegiate Sports Discussion > College Football

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2005, 11:51 PM   #16
190 Octane
All-Star Player
 
190 Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 682
190 Octane is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpbot
I think Doublee makes some valid points. And as far as Oregon goes, they played one top 10 ranked team and got blown away. I think for the first time in several years, each BCS bowl game is worth watching for all kinds of reasons. Unless you're a Oregon fan, what would you rather watch in the Fiesta bowl, ND vs Oregon, Ohio vs Oregon or ND vs Ohio? I'll bet you 9 out of 10 college football fans would rather watch the last one.
Take off the navy and gold tinted glasses for a second and you'd see that in my last post I pointed out that Oregon has an edge on Notre Dame in EVERY facet - opponent's record, wins against bowl-bound teams, and overall record.

But OK, let's ignore the facts for a second and look at who fans might "rather" see. Let's say all sports decided big games by that philosophy. How about instead of Marlins-Yankees in the 2003 Series, we forego the Playoffs and just make it Cubs-Red Sox. People would rather have seen that! Or this year's NBA Finals - I'm sure people would've rather had the sexy matchup of Phoenix vs. Miami, but they got the teams who earned it instead, San Antonio and Detroit.

And, like in those other cases, Oregon may not have been the team people wanted to see, but they're the team that earned it.
190 Octane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 11:58 PM   #17
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

190 Octane is absolutely right about the schedule's of Notre Dame and Oregon. This is why Oregon finished higher in the BCS standings. As I said, your complaint should be with the fact that Notre Dame was GURANTEED a BCS spot (they were not selected) because they finished in the top 6 or 9 --I forget exactly what their deal is. As they said in the selection show, there were no at-large BCS teams this year.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 12:04 AM   #18
190 Octane
All-Star Player
 
190 Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 682
190 Octane is on a distinguished road
Default

Yeah, I agree with you Ricky. Basically my complaint includes the guaranteed bid. It should have never been there, it's just because of the mystique that comes with that golden helmet. In my eyes it's equal to MLB granting the Yankees homefield advantage in the Playoffs if they finish fourth in the AL, but telling the Twins they need to come in second to even qualify.
190 Octane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 01:47 AM   #19
buckeyefan78
Happy Land
 
buckeyefan78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,864
buckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the rough
Default

According to Sagarin's final SOS rankings...

Ohio State finished at #2, Notre Dame placed at #19, and Oregon came in at #34. That probably is good enough for some people to give ND the nod, but I'm not too sure.
buckeyefan78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 01:51 AM   #20
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

The BCS is not a playoff system though. The BCS is in place in an attempt to combine big business of the Bowls with trying to find the ultimate National Champion. For all the knocks on the BCS, this right here is exactly what people wanted before the BCS was implemented. To take the two clear best teams in the Nation and match them up when they otherwise would not have been matched up.

The BCS has seen some bumps along the way, although in my mind last year was the only time the BCS made a mistake. In the other years, teams with one loss were complaining and probably shouldn't have been.

The BCS is a step in the right direction. Under the old system Texas and USC would finish up after the Bowls undefeated and there would be debate over who the National Champion is.

Regardless of what people might personally think about a playoff system, it's a pretty even split on those for it and those against it from any polling I've seen and discussions I've taken part in. I absolutely dislike the idea of a playoff, so I'll live with the BCS having some flaws.

The whole blame the BCS for Notre Dame and Miami stuff. Under the old system, Notre Dame goes to the Fiesta or Orange Bowl. Under the old system Florida St. would have had whatever big Bowl tie-in the ACC had.

I'm intrigued by every single one of these games. Sure, Florida St. probably isn't one of the 8 best teams in the country. But, the BCS has never implied that they were about ranking the 8 best teams in the country and putting them in matchups such as 1 v. 2, 3 v 4 and so on.

The BCS is a compromise and it gets attacked every year, but it's not exactly a bad system.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 03:09 AM   #21
digital7
Deep South
 
digital7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
digital7 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Graham
The BCS is not a playoff system though. The BCS is in place in an attempt to combine big business of the Bowls with trying to find the ultimate National Champion..

that's why the BCS is a bust.. agreed?
digital7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 09:28 AM   #22
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Not at all.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 10:57 AM   #23
digital7
Deep South
 
digital7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
digital7 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Graham
Not at all.
You prefer current implemented system over a playoff system? I'm not sure how you could think that is fair. I've watched college football for years, and I happen to think it's better than the NFL in various aspects. But one thing that has drawn me away from it is the fact that the way the current system is setup shows favoratism towards certain conferences and boasts too much emphasis on pre-season rankings.

Imagine NCAA Basketball playing at the tune of conference championships then being setup in a title game featuring the top two ranked schools who finish with the best overall record... then the other teams being featured head to head at something called the Snickers Arena

Would you have the Marquette's of the world making it to the Final Four and making it that much more exciting?
digital7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 11:03 AM   #24
190 Octane
All-Star Player
 
190 Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 682
190 Octane is on a distinguished road
Default

In terms of crowning a national champion, the BCS is great in a season like this. You've got the clear-cut No. 1 and No. 2 facing each other, instead of the system a decade ago when USC would have been in the Rose Bowl and Texas the Sugar Bowl with both likely winning and having to split the championship.

However, it's been a rarity in recent seasons that it's worked out like this.

2001: Miami trounces a weak Nebraska team, who got the nod over a likely superior Oregon team. No one will ever know if Oregon could have given Miami a better game - something that financially would have benefited the BCS, as people wouldn't turn off the TV in droves.

2003: Oklahoma, USC, and LSU finish with the same record. USC gets hosed out of playing in the Sugar Bowl, and LSU's title is diminished by the fact it's shared with USC, who can stake even claim because LSU won narrowly while USC dominated. Think those two teams would have liked to lock horns later that month?

2004: Oklahoma gets the nod over Auburn to play USC in the Orange Bowl and gets waxed. Auburn remains undefeated. No doubt in my mind, Auburn would have put up a better fight.

So basically, the BCS has been severely flawed in terms of the title game 60% of the last five seasons. Then, in the last two years, you've got good one-loss teams who just so happened to play in the national champions' conference snubbed, losing out on that $7.2 million.
190 Octane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 01:48 PM   #25
digital7
Deep South
 
digital7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
digital7 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 190 Octane
In terms of crowning a national champion, the BCS is great in a season like this. You've got the clear-cut No. 1 and No. 2 facing each other, instead of the system a decade ago when USC would have been in the Rose Bowl and Texas the Sugar Bowl with both likely winning and having to split the championship.

However, it's been a rarity in recent seasons that it's worked out like this.

2001: Miami trounces a weak Nebraska team, who got the nod over a likely superior Oregon team. No one will ever know if Oregon could have given Miami a better game - something that financially would have benefited the BCS, as people wouldn't turn off the TV in droves.

2003: Oklahoma, USC, and LSU finish with the same record. USC gets hosed out of playing in the Sugar Bowl, and LSU's title is diminished by the fact it's shared with USC, who can stake even claim because LSU won narrowly while USC dominated. Think those two teams would have liked to lock horns later that month?

2004: Oklahoma gets the nod over Auburn to play USC in the Orange Bowl and gets waxed. Auburn remains undefeated. No doubt in my mind, Auburn would have put up a better fight.

So basically, the BCS has been severely flawed in terms of the title game 60% of the last five seasons. Then, in the last two years, you've got good one-loss teams who just so happened to play in the national champions' conference snubbed, losing out on that $7.2 million.

the truth is that College Football has never been right and it will never be right unless serious changes are made..

this year was a complete fluke
digital7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 02:15 PM   #26
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by digital7
You prefer current implemented system over a playoff system? I'm not sure how you could think that is fair. I've watched college football for years, and I happen to think it's better than the NFL in various aspects. But one thing that has drawn me away from it is the fact that the way the current system is setup shows favoratism towards certain conferences and boasts too much emphasis on pre-season rankings.

Imagine NCAA Basketball playing at the tune of conference championships then being setup in a title game featuring the top two ranked schools who finish with the best overall record... then the other teams being featured head to head at something called the Snickers Arena

Would you have the Marquette's of the world making it to the Final Four and making it that much more exciting?
This implies that college basketball and college football season's are similar.

They aren't. They're different beasts entirely. For starters, you have three times the amount of games. Second, a lot of times you play conference teams twice a lot of the times. With the huge Conferences this is obviously a little different, but the point is the same.

College basketball's post season should not be compared to college football's postseason.

I like the current system over a playoff because I think a playoff would be possibly the worst thing for college football. I think in general, a playoff is BAD, but is a necessary evil a lot of the time. For instance, something as big as college basketball. I think the decision to add the wild card and another division to baseball playoffs was a bad one and I like how the winner of the English Premier League is decided.

The more playoff teams you have, the less important a regular season is going to be.

Look at this season in college football. Auburn would have a pretty good shot in a playoff, but they lost two games. Same with Ohio St. I'm sure they think they could take Texas in a playoff rematch. Same with Penn State. But, it cheapens the regular season if you can allow a team to take a loss or two and still have a chance to compete for the National Title.

College football's regular season is for me the best season or playoffs in all of sports. Every game matters.

This is also why Octane's "flaws" of the BCS aren't flaws in my mind.

2001: Oregon and Nebraska both lost a game. Don't blame the BCS, when you have teams with the same amount of losses it is a crapshoot NO MATTER WHAT. Under the old Bowls system, you would not have gotten a diff. outcome.

2003: They all finished with a loss. Crapshoot. You can't blame the BCS.

2004: This is the one time I think the BCS has gotten it wrong, as all the teams were undefeated. I think the BCS should have some sort of system in play where undefeated teams in the top 5 of the BCS should enter some sort of playoff. (I say top 5 because say some team goes 12-0, plays no one and is ranked 15th everywhere. They would likely be a small/mid conference team, but I don't think someone should be precluded on that basis ALONE) If a team is undefeated and from a big time conference or on par with a big time conference, they should try to set something up to make a clear winner.

I have sympathy for the undefeated teams, I don't have sympathy for a one loss team. I love PSU to death, but I don't think under any circumstance that they should have even a SLIGHT chance at winning the National Title this season in a playoff. It would diminish the regular season.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 02:56 PM   #27
digital7
Deep South
 
digital7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 911
digital7 is on a distinguished road
Default

seems like you're a pretty staunch supporter

How can you say that having a playoff system will impact the importance of regular season games?

You play to be the top seed and play the lower seed .. much like 1 vs. 16 in a bracket.

obviously the two seasons are different.. doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out.. but, can you please elaborate further on what signifigance the total amount of games played have anything to do with your argument?

Quote:
But, it cheapens the regular season if you can allow a team to take a loss or two and still have a chance to compete for the National Title.
Why? Why do you say that if a one loss team in a playoff system that competes for a national title is cheap? Im completely mystified by what you're saying here

Last edited by digital7; 12-06-2005 at 03:02 PM.
digital7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 04:10 PM   #28
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Because right now that one loss is EVERYTHING. Under a playoff you can lose a game and still have a chance at the National Title.

The total amount of games played and specifically playing a game against certain teams TWICE tend to lead to losses. When the best teams all tend to lose some games, it gets much more dicey to sort out.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 07:09 PM   #29
190 Octane
All-Star Player
 
190 Octane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 682
190 Octane is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree that in a lot of cases it's a crap shoot, but it's a manipulated crap shoot IMO. A lot of the factors that are supposed to come into consideration, well, don't.

Take for example when you lose. One of the arguments for the BCS when it was first put in place was an early loss wouldn't be held against a team who was hot at the end of the year as much as losing at season's end. Well, in 2001 Oregon lost in early October. Nebraska lost the last regular season game of the year, and by quite a bit. Who gets the bid? Nebraska.

Then in 2003, USC loses to Stanford early in the schedule. Oklahoma goes undefeated, then gets walloped in the last game of the season before the bowls. Who goes to the Sugar Bowl? Oklahoma.

That's the thing I think I hate the most about the BCS - it's hypocritical. If it's catered to the big-money teams, fine. But I'd like someone from its committee to come out and say that. Don't give some song-and-dance about how, "oh well Notre Dame wins out because of X," even though Oregon has better statistics.
190 Octane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 07:19 PM   #30
NickHammy
Sports Virtuoso
 
NickHammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Columbus,Ohio
Posts: 4,236
NickHammy is on a distinguished road
Default

In a year such as this one with only 2 undefeated teams, there is no reason for a playoff. One game will settle who the best team in the country is. Teams like Oregon, Ohio State, etc had their chance and didn't pull it out, and they don't deserve to be national champions because of it. Thats what makes the regular season so special. For the most part, its do or die every week. So rather than just being a minor setback and a lower seed in a playoff, a loss can determine your entire season.

Also, next year there is going to be an additional BCS game so if that were the case this year teams like Oregon and Auburn likely would have recieved the remaining at-large bids.
__________________
Ohio State Buckeyes
NickHammy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:03 AM.