BCS Standings

[corporatejay]

sucks about Georgia, I'm surprised the tie-breaker isn't "BCS Ranking" You'd have to think if they were to play LSU in the SEC title game they'd get some serious NC consideration. Oh well, shouldn't have lost to tennessee.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

No it hasn't.

And if you are referring to the debate of conference ranking a playoff is irrelevant.

If you are referring to determining a NC, I think we have the best system out there. If you want to be in the game, run the table. If not, you roll the dice.

Folks enjoy the football, enjoy the conference championships and the dozens of bowl games, don't put some much on who the NC is.

The current system is about as bad as it gets as not only does it not give us a definitive champion it already has diminished the bowls. The bowls used to have a lot of tradition behind them. i.e. Big Ten vs. Pac 10 in Rose Bowl. Now they are randomly assigned based on who is in the BCS, who is the Championship game etc.

The problem with saying run the table is that it doesn't work. Boise St. has shown that, Hawaii will show it this year and more importantly Auburn has shown it. Also when nobody runs the table you end up with arbitrary rankings and questionable computer polls to determine who is best. Even when common sense says a team should make it that is thrown out the door. (i.e. USC clearly being the best team in the country and being left out for Oklahoma and LSU).

Also under this current system teams like West Virginia are rewarded for playing is a super easy Big East while LSU and USC who are both better teams get punished for playing against legitimate foes. Under this system there is no rationality or incentive for playing a decent schedule and in my view this really is what makes regular season games irrelevant.

Also I in most years once a team loses all their games become irrelevant. This year everyone of Michigans games was basically irrelevant after the App. St. loss. For USC after losing to Stanford there basically went their chances.

If you don't want care about the NC then I say go back to the traditional bowl ties. That system was as effective at producing clear national champions as this one is except at least back then we didn't have one team holding some stupid glass trophy that is supposed to signify that they are the true champs and not the team that is at least equally deserving if not more.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by moon

The current system is about as bad as it gets as not only does it not give us a definitive champion it already has diminished the bowls. The bowls used to have a lot of tradition behind them. i.e. Big Ten vs. Pac 10 in Rose Bowl. Now they are randomly assigned based on who is in the BCS, who is the Championship game etc.

It's not random. The rose bowl is still pac 10 vs Big Ten, unless it hosts the NC or if either team is in the NC. Fiesta used to get the Big XII champion pre BCS, and still does, Sugar used to get the SEC champ, and still does, and the Orange used to get the ACC, and still does. The remaining spots have a methodology behind it, mid majors ranking in the top 12 or above a bcs conf. champion is in, and ND is in if they are a top 8. From there the bcs bowls choose at large teams. So the random comment is factually incorrect.

Second it is the first time in history that they ensure 1 vs 2 plays ... before it was very rare. Every year except 1 has there been any credible claim that a team didn't get into the championship. It's bizarre to think that they don't have a definitive NC.

Originally Posted by moon

The problem with saying run the table is that it doesn't work. Boise St. has shown that, Hawaii will show it this year and more importantly Auburn has shown it. Also when nobody runs the table you end up with arbitrary rankings and questionable computer polls to determine who is best. Even when common sense says a team should make it that is thrown out the door. (i.e. USC clearly being the best team in the country and being left out for Oklahoma and LSU).

Run the table AND be in a BCS conference. It's nice for Hawaii and BSU to talk to the media about how they have been slighted by the big mean BCS system, but the fact of the matter is that at least a dozen if not more teams could plow through the cupcake WAC. I give you Auburn, who is the one exception in 9 years, but that's it, one credible exception. How can anyone give BSU any credibility as a NC if tons of teams could run right through the WAC. It's true that it's not BSU's fault that their schedule sucks, I bet they have a tough time scheduling out of conference, but that isn't really relevant. Anyone who knows NCAA ball knows that almost accross the board every athlete 2 deep on the depth chart is better in the SEC vs the WAC. Not many athletes narrow down the recruiting visit list to Texas, Clemson, Tennessee and ... Idaho. If you bought the AD of BSU a beer and started chatting I'm sure they'd tell you that they are sitting pretty exactly where they are, they can win tons of games, people can have sympathy for them because they remind people of society where the small man gets screwed, but frankly they'd have no interest in playing in a major conference such as the Pac 10 because then they'd have to compete, and they'd get lost in the woodwork.

Also under this current system teams like West Virginia are rewarded for playing is a super easy Big East while LSU and USC who are both better teams get punished for playing against legitimate foes. Under this system there is no rationality or incentive for playing a decent schedule and in my view this really is what makes regular season games irrelevant.

Originally Posted by moon

Also I in most years once a team loses all their games become irrelevant. This year everyone of Michigans games was basically irrelevant after the App. St. loss. For USC after losing to Stanford there basically went their chances.

It still determines what bowl they get to, but notwithstanding, in terms of a NC quest, yea they are knocked out. So what? In a playoff, dozens of huge college games every year would have a tiny fraction of the meaning and therefore interest. Playoff people just don't understand that they'd be screwing with the very thing that makes college football great. Important games in September, October and November. You might sit here in Canada and say who cares, but go down to Gainsville in late September and ask everyone at the UF vs UT game what they think.

Originally Posted by moon

If you don't want care about the NC then I say go back to the traditional bowl ties. That system was as effective at producing clear national champions as this one is except at least back then we didn't have one team holding some stupid glass trophy that is supposed to signify that they are the true champs and not the team that is at least equally deserving if not more.

I generally don't care about the NC, except when I have tickets to it. I like the old system as well, but if you are a longtime fan you got to admit the BCS in general has spiked interest in the sport, and I've seen TV rating patterns that would prove that. College football is the most popular sport on the continent ... it can't be that bad.

Lastly, what is any more legitimate than say a 9-3 team sneaking into a playoff and winning 3 games to be a NC, how is that any more legit that say UF winning last year? or UT in it's first year of the BCS? In that scenario people would feel better about a 3 loss team becoming a NC? That's ridiculous.

At the end of the day the people running the sport (school's and conferences) are smarter that the avg fan, and they know what's best for the sport. And a playoff sounds nice, and it turns the media into good cops by whining about it ... (which became trendy by CBS when the system started ... the very system that their main competitor bought into) but it is not good for the sport as a whole.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It's not random. The rose bowl is still pac 10 vs Big Ten, unless it hosts the NC or if either team is in the NC. Fiesta used to get the Big XII champion pre BCS, and still does, Sugar used to get the SEC champ, and still does, and the Orange used to get the ACC, and still does. The remaining spots have a methodology behind it, mid majors ranking in the top 12 or above a bcs conf. champion is in, and ND is in if they are a top 8. From there the bcs bowls choose at large teams. So the random comment is factually incorrect.

And now with the 5th major bowl (the BCS Championship Bowl), the traditional bowl bids dont get interrupted.

I for one dont mind the system. A playoff will never happen so people need to accept that. A few adjustments would be fine, but we cant get so hung up on the national champion. Maintain the tradition and keep the intensity and importance of every single game.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It's not random.

It isn't random but based on who is playing in the Championship game the match-ups are altered.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Second it is the first time in history that they ensure 1 vs 2 plays ... before it was very rare. Every year except 1 has there been any credible claim that a team didn't get into the championship. It's bizarre to think that they don't have a definitive NC.

The problem I have is that who is 1 and 2 is not clear. This year is a good example, I would say that Missouri and West Virginia are clearly not the best teams. This system does not determine who is the best but who is the best at fitting into the system that the BCS has set up. There has been more than 1 year that a team has a credible claim. When USC was first in both polls and would have easily beat the two teams in the Championship game they had a legitimate claim. When Nebraska was put in the game despite not winning their conference there was a legitimate claim they didn't belong. Also, in many years the BCS was bailed out because of upsets not because it was a good system.

Also, many of the years it has had number 1 killing number 2 and not really changing anything that would have occurred under the old system.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Run the table AND be in a BCS conference.

I agree with you here, but if you give teams playing in garbage conferences like the Big East and some years the ACC the same playing field as the SEC and Pac 10 I think an undefeated team like Hawaii or Boise St. should be considered on par with a WV team with one loss.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It still determines what bowl they get to, but notwithstanding, in terms of a NC quest, yea they are knocked out. So what? In a playoff, dozens of huge college games every year would have a tiny fraction of the meaning and therefore interest. Playoff people just don't understand that they'd be screwing with the very thing that makes college football great. Important games in September, October and November. You might sit here in Canada and say who cares, but go down to Gainsville in late September and ask everyone at the UF vs UT game what they think.

I disagree. In a play-off rivalries still will remain. In a play-off there still would be games to see who would be 8th or 16th, finishing 1st would still be huge as it makes it much easier to make it to the final. I don't see how the games would be any less important. The only difference is that 1 loss wouldn't be as big a killer but that second loss could finish you. There could be more games that would be important as more teams would still be in it.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I generally don't care about the NC, except when I have tickets to it. I like the old system as well, but if you are a longtime fan you got to admit the BCS in general has spiked interest in the sport, and I've seen TV rating patterns that would prove that. College football is the most popular sport on the continent ... it can't be that bad.

I think soccer would have it beat in terms of popularity in the planet. Perhaps interest has spiked but I can't see why. The system doesn't to anything to improve the old system and is much worse at providing us with a real champion then a play-off would, but if that is what the numbers say I will believe you.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lastly, what is any more legitimate than say a 9-3 team sneaking into a playoff and winning 3 games to be a NC, how is that any more legit that say UF winning last year? or UT in it's first year of the BCS? In that scenario people would feel better about a 3 loss team becoming a NC? That's ridiculous.

At least that team would have to beat legitimate contenders and not UCONN, Rutgers and Missouri to waltz into the title.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

At the end of the day the people running the sport (school's and conferences) are smarter that the avg fan, and they know what's best for the sport. And a playoff sounds nice, and it turns the media into good cops by whining about it ... (which became trendy by CBS when the system started ... the very system that their main competitor bought into) but it is not good for the sport as a whole.

I am not sure that everyone that runs the sport are smarter than anyone. There are plenty of awful decisions by both conferences and schools.

The main thing for me is that this new system doesn't provide us with a more legitimate champion than the old system and certainly provides a much less legitimate champion than a play-off system would. So I don't understand why we would keep this system over the old traditional system or the play-off system.

[transplant99]

There is a scenario happening right now that exposes how brutal the BCS way of doing things can be.

Should Mizz and West Virginia both lose this weekend, the NC game would feature Georgia and Ohio State.

Georgia cant even win their own friggin conference, yet they could possibly be crowned the best team in the country? Its laughable.

The one solution that a playoff system would offer is that the teams playing the best RIGHT NOW would likely be the ones whom make it to the NC game.


As an example, I cant believe anyone would say that Kansas is a better team than LSU or USC right now, or Oklahoma for that matter.

The time for a system that doesnt BEGIN with arbitrary rankings to take over.

[corporatejay]

Georgia cant even win their own friggin conference, yet they could possibly be crowned the best team in the country? Its laughable.

why is this always blamed on the BCS??? Blame it on the SEC for having a ridiculous standings system. Tennessee has a better in conference record (well tied with georgia but they beat them) but a worse record overall. Because the SEC doesn't care about their out of conference record or their BCS ranking they get to play LSU this weekend. That's stupidity on the part of the SEC and their system not the BCS.

[transplant99]

Blame it on the SEC for having a ridiculous standings system. Tennessee has a better in conference record (well tied with georgia but they beat them) but a worse record overall

How is that stupid?

Its CONFERENCE standings they SHOULD be concerned with, not whatever happens outside them. If all teams played the same teams out of conference, then fine, use the overall. But in determining your own conference champion, it ONLY makes sense to use the in conference games.

And besides all that...is there a conference in the country that doesn't use the same system?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How is that stupid?

Its CONFERENCE standings they SHOULD be concerned with, not whatever happens outside them. If all teams played the same teams out of conference, then fine, use the overall. But in determining your own conference champion, it ONLY makes sense to use the in conference games.

And besides all that...is there a conference in the country that doesn't use the same system?

Your argument was that georgia can't win their own conference so they shouldn't have national title implications. My point was that, the reason they can't win their own conference is because their conference only takes into account part of their record, not their entire record.

Let me use a more ridiculous example.

Team A goes 6-0 in conference but 0-6 out of conference.

Team B goes 5-1 in conference but 6-0 out of conference.

Team A would win their conference based on the above formula but they are a 6-6 team. Are you suggesting Team B should be allowed to play in the national title game even though they only have 1 loss (assuming they are the only 1 loss team in the country even...)?

[transplant99]

Team A goes 6-0 in conference but 0-6 out of conference.

Team B goes 5-1 in conference but 6-0 out of conference.

Remarkably ridiculous example.

No team in the country plays more than 4 OOC games in any given year, and generally less than that depending on the conference. Thats why so much weight is given to IN conference games.

Using this years Georgia team as an example...

they played
OK State (lost 6 times this year)
Western Carolina (A D1-AA team that went 1-10)
Troy (who?)
GA Tech in a rivalry game.(5 loss team in a weak ACC)

How much weight do you give THAT schedule?

Thier OOC games consisted of cupcakes other than Ga Tech. So how does that then elevate them up to NC territory when they couldnt win their own conference?

[Gugstanley]

I think the only way to claim you are the best is to win a playoff. A 16 team playoff isn't going to ruin the bowl system either. Those bowls can still play their games just without the 16 best teams. More people would watch if it was a playoff and the debate over who was the best would be answered on the field.

Football players don't miss as much school as other athletes so the extra games won't hurt them.

The ranking system is so flawed right now. Nobody can watch every game played every weekend. How can you possibly rank teams you haven't ever seen play?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by moon

It isn't random but based on who is playing in the Championship game the match-ups are altered.

the only way you get altered is if you are a #1 or #2. and are moved to the NC ... I'm sure they don't mind.

Originally Posted by moon

The problem I have is that who is 1 and 2 is not clear. This year is a good example, I would say that Missouri and West Virginia are clearly not the best teams. This system does not determine who is the best but who is the best at fitting into the system that the BCS has set up. There has been more than 1 year that a team has a credible claim. When USC was first in both polls and would have easily beat the two teams in the Championship game they had a legitimate claim. When Nebraska was put in the game despite not winning their conference there was a legitimate claim they didn't belong. Also, in many years the BCS was bailed out because of upsets not because it was a good system.

It's not an exact science, the polls are brutal (IE computers are smarter than the voters) but you have 118 teams and 12 games. But a playoff doesn't do anything to solve it. Ya, it's not clear who's best. But in 2004, if Gelinas goal scored can anyone with a straight face say that the Flames were the best hockey team that year? They spent 5 months being slightly above average ... they wouldn't have won the most games, just the right games. College football is the opposite of that, all the games matter.

Playoffs are not, and never been about sorting out a champion, they are about $$$, in hockey more than half the teams are in a playoff that lasts 2 months ... is this about some kind of deep resolve to really sort out who is the best by having teams play each other over and over and over? It's just about money, which is ironic, pro playoff people hate the BCS because they think that the AD's and conference organizations are all about money ... well that may be true, but why the hell do you think the NHL has 2 months worth of playoffs and a million games? (If it's not clear, the answer is money)

The BCS has never been 'bailed out' that is a term someone who has an unconditional hate regardless of facts would say when the BCS 'gets it right'

Originally Posted by moon

Also, many of the years it has had number 1 killing number 2 and not really changing anything that would have occurred under the old system.

So? all that means is that you don't need an elaborate playoff scheme to determine number one. And in a playoff do you somehow think those types of games don't exist?

Originally Posted by moon

I agree with you here, but if you give teams playing in garbage conferences like the Big East and some years the ACC the same playing field as the SEC and Pac 10 I think an undefeated team like Hawaii or Boise St. should be considered on par with a WV team with one loss.

Or a 3 or 4 loss Pac10 team or SEC team.

Originally Posted by moon

I disagree. In a play-off rivalries still will remain. In a play-off there still would be games to see who would be 8th or 16th, finishing 1st would still be huge as it makes it much easier to make it to the final. I don't see how the games would be any less important. The only difference is that 1 loss wouldn't be as big a killer but that second loss could finish you. There could be more games that would be important as more teams would still be in it.

yes, rivalries will exist, but the importance of many games go into the toilet. This year KU and Mizzou is the perfect example. Yes it is a rivalry and would have been a big story in two states. Thanks to the importance of the regular season, everybody in America knew this was an important game, and I'm sure had ranking that absolutely blow away any college basketball regular season game.

And they exist every week, big games in different cities.

There are no two ways about it, playoff will decrease the importance of the regular season. It's a simple, perfectly dependable concept that is impossible to deny.

Playoffs = less important, less interesting regular season.

Originally Posted by moon

I think soccer would have it beat in terms of popularity in the planet. Perhaps interest has spiked but I can't see why. The system doesn't to anything to improve the old system and is much worse at providing us with a real champion then a play-off would, but if that is what the numbers say I will believe you.

I'm sure soccer is more important on the planet, but certainly not on the continent. NCAA Div 1 ball is the only major sporting league on the continent that doesn't have a playoff ... and it's the most popular hmmm.

Originally Posted by moon

At least that team would have to beat legitimate contenders and not UCONN, Rutgers and Missouri to waltz into the title.

And which BCS NC has had that as a highlight of a schedule? That's quite disingenuous, the BCS is all about skewing preference to teams that have tougher schedules.

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure that everyone that runs the sport are smarter than anyone. There are plenty of awful decisions by both conferences and schools.

I didn't say everyone, I said the average fan ... and they are. BTW, how many pro playoff people have tuned NCAA college ball out in favor of hockey?

Originally Posted by moon

The main thing for me is that this new system doesn't provide us with a more legitimate champion than the old system and certainly provides a much less legitimate champion than a play-off system would. So I don't understand why we would keep this system over the old traditional system or the play-off system.

Well for me I liked the old system, it's biggest plus was that it didn't have casual fans with no sense of tradition fixated on a NC, it was about big games, and big bowls. I like the BCS system better because it is a good balance of tradition and a NC.

I'm not going to repeat what I have already said too many more times, but playoffs don't make a champion more legit, the Flames in 04 were not the best team of the year, neither were the lightning, neither were the hurricanes the next year, neither were the Spurs or tons of other teams who win playoffs. And it's being glossed over but it really would kill most of the other bowl games. Most people in Canada don't realize, the big thing about the bowl system is that it gives the schools a way to connect with alum. A few hundred thousand vacations are created when alum travel with their team to wherever their bowl game is, party for a week and then watch their team play. They will never give that up.

Gotta go, there's going to be some college football playoffs in a few hours.

EDIT: Just had a chance to read a decent article ... this guy gets it.
http://www.sportsline.com/collegefoo...story/10504513

[corporatejay]

FF07, I agree with most of what you said, I like the non-playoff system of the BCS, but would you be in favour of an "And 1" system?

[Flames in 07]

I'm not sure I know what "and 1" means.

Watching ESPN pregame, Buckeye fans have traveled down to San Antonio for the Big XII championship. I love College ball.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As an example, I cant believe anyone would say that Kansas is a better team than LSU or USC right now, or Oklahoma for that matter.

Why is always the best team at the end of the season that matters?

Kansas was clearly the better team than USC during the middle of the season (when USC lost twice in a matter of weeks), but that's irrelevant because USC is putting it together now?

Kansas has been great all season. Teams like USC and Florida have been great, then average (or even terrible) and are now playing elite football. I love the fact that Kansas' consistency actually stands for something.

[Clever_Iggy]

I hope Missouri and West Virginia take care of things today.

I hate the fact that Ohio State could make it to the championship playing in that garbage conference and sitting idle for so many weeks.

Besides, an OSU-USC matchup (assuming USC takes care of things) would be great for the Rose Bowl... even if OSU lumbers to another bowl loss.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I hope Missouri and West Virginia take care of things today.

I hate the fact that Ohio State could make it to the championship playing in that garbage conference and sitting idle for so many weeks.

As bad as the Big Ten is it is still better than the Big Least so not sure why you would want West Virginia in the Championship game.

Flames in 07:

Plenty that I disagree but we will go back and forth all day arguing these points so I guess we will have to disagree. To me the BCS does not do any better of a job of determining a "real" or "legit" NC than the old system does so why use it over the old Bowl system?

Whether you agree with it or not play-offs are recoginzed in sports as determining a legit champion. Maybe not the best team but a champion. I agree that some of the luster will be lost from a traditional sense, but no way will games matter less.

Personally, I would say that this guy gets it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3128299&spor tCat=ncf

[moon]

Originally Posted by JayP

Why is always the best team at the end of the season that matters?

Kansas was clearly the better team than USC during the middle of the season (when USC lost twice in a matter of weeks), but that's irrelevant because USC is putting it together now?

Kansas has been great all season. Teams like USC and Florida have been great, then average (or even terrible) and are now playing elite football. I love the fact that Kansas' consistency actually stands for something.

Kansas was clearly the better team against much weaker competition. I know they can only play the teams on the schedule but I am not sure they would have been so consistent versus ASU, Oregon and Cal.

Kansas had a great season and deserve to go to a good bowl but I don't think it is wrong to question how "great" they were when they lost the only game against a decent squad they played all year.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by moon

As bad as the Big Ten is it is still better than the Big Least so not sure why you would want West Virginia in the Championship game.

The Big East is bad... but at least they have put themselves against a measuring stick. The non-conference games played by the Big Ten are laughable. Who has Ohio State beat? Michigan? Michigan State? Wisconsin? Not exactly the best gauges of ability.

If the Big 11 wants to crawl out of the hole that theyre in, they need to consistently schedule out of conference games across the board... and Youngstown State/Appalachian State/etc... dont count.

Besides, watching White and Slaton scamper around for a game will be better to watch that the very creative power-I from OSU.

[Flames in 07]

Ohio State played Texas back to back.

I'm not sure the the big ten deserve to have this much sand kicked in its face. It is certainly miles ahead of the Big East, always has, always will.

BTW. Cats are going down.