Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by preston
    It doesn't always reward excellence either.
    -Boise State 2010.
    -Utah '09. '09 (you mean 08?) OK playing for national champ though 1-loss TX beat OK.
    -Auburn undefeated in 2004...Utah too
    -'06 Boise State
    -LSU '03 playing OK instead of USC.
    -Oregon '02
    -Florida State winning national champs despite losing to one loss Miami in 2001.
    -1990 Colorado.
    Penn State has gone undefeated twice and not won a national champ.
    1) SInce Texas had also has a loss on its record in 2008 (to Texas Tech), your argument about Oklahoma uses circular logic. You must have been dying to use the term circular logic...I'm glad you got that out of the way. Was it a quota? it doesn't buttress your point. Texas beat OK, they both had 1-loss. Most people would think that since they both had one-loss that they would be LESS deserving than the team that they lost to that also had one loss. Not too different than the other cited case where FSU played for the NC after losing to a 1-loss Miami.

    2) LSU, Oklahoma and USC all had a loss in 2003, so how can you say that excellence wasn't rewarded and why was USC any more deserving than the other two teams? Who you lose to should matter; losing to an unranked or 3-loss team should count for more than losing to a one loss or top5, 10, etc. LSU should have played USC instead of OK which lessened it's NC. USC would have been the "more excellent" of the one losses available

    3) I think you're confused about Florida State. Undfeated Oklahoma won the national championship in 2000 and undefeated Miami won the national championship in 2001. Not confused, but definitely messed up my years...I was clearly wrong though. Miami, as you noted, did win but Nebraska got to play for the national championship without making it to their conference game.

    4) There was no BCS in 1990, the year Colorado needed a fifth down to beat Missouri and still had a loss and a tie on their record.
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    ...The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity...
    had you said, "the one thing that I like about the "BCS" instead of "college football" number 4 might make sense. You didn't, it doesn't. Also, Georgia Tech was UNDEFEATED THAT SEASON!!!

    5) Penn State hasn't gone undefeated since the BCS came into existence.
    Once again, you said "college football"; the BCS is rather recent and it also has it's shortcomings that have forced the BCS to change some of the rules along the way

    6) You forgot about BYU

    7) You forgot about BSU

    8) You forgot about Auburn

    9) You forgot about Oregon

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

      Go Huskies! My interim school. Everyone on the list who knows me knows I am a Dukie thru and thru, but I had to do one year of extra school to get into med school and did it at Northern Illinois, living at the in-laws near the school. And besides, hard to root much for Duke football.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

        Originally posted by preston
        Once again, you said "college football"; the BCS is rather recent and it also has it's shortcomings that have forced the BCS to change some of the rules along the way
        Didn't you read the thread topic? It was about the BCS.

        Originally posted by preston
        6) You forgot about BYU

        7) You forgot about BSU

        8) You forgot about Auburn

        9) You forgot about Oregon
        I only refuted the assertions in your previous post, so I don't know where Oregon and BYU come from, since you neither mentioned them nor have they achieved perfection in the BCS era. As for the other teams, I think it's self-evident that the BCS can not reward every team's excellence in the event that more than two teams go undefeated.

        To me it's nonsensical to consider such arbitrary things as who won their conference and who lost late in the season versus early when considering who's worthy and who's not. I also reject the the circular logic of elevating team A over team B when they both have losses just because team A beat team B. That's silly TV pundit logic IMO. What if team A's loss came to a FCS team or a weak FBS team? Shouldn't the quality of the loss be taken into consideration? And what if team B had a much more impressive set of wins than team A? The only things that matter to me is the quality of the teams you lost to and how much you lost by and the quality of the teams you beat and how badly you beat them. I also have absolutely no sympathy for teams who don't have perfect seasons.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

          Someone mentioned that term" Bowl Eligible."

          What a farce ! Take my alma mater as an example.... Duke got lucky and went 6-1 ( Bowl Eligible ! Bowl Eligible ! ) beating 6 terrible teams. I astutely predicted they would get hammered in their 5 remaining games against better teams, and sure enough they did, giving up over 40 points in all 5 of them.

          But.... Bowl Eligble ! Bowl Eligible ! and a a trip to the Belk Bowl ( the what ? the what ? ) with that 6-6 record.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

            6-7 Georgia Tech gets in a bowl. Ridiculous.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

              Originally posted by gh
              From a left-coast point of view, the Rose Bowl is never crap if it involves a competent Pac-8 (oh, sorry, 12) team against a competent Big 10 counterpart.

              Despite Wisco's overall record, I think this year's fits the bill.
              Wisconsin is in its seventh Rose Bowl and sixth since the new era began with Alvarez. They have lost two of those five and have been favored in none of them, and big underdogs deemed 'undeserving' in ones that they have won, ask Stanford and UCLA.

              They are also only 7 points from being 12-1 and just thoroughly took apart the #14 team, their second biggest lose. [And you should know that a loss to Oregon State does not count for me as that is my 'other team', having taught there.]

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                The most idiotic thing about the BCS is how much weight is given to the coaches poll in determining the BCS rankings. Coaches don't watch enough games to make an informed decision and rankings are extremely political. They over rank themselves and their conference and penalize their traditional rivals with lower rankings. It's the worst poll out there by far.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                  Originally posted by Cooter Brown
                  The most idiotic thing about the BCS is how much weight is given to the coaches poll in determining the BCS rankings. Coaches don't watch enough games to make an informed decision and rankings are extremely political. They over rank themselves and their conference and penalize their traditional rivals with lower rankings. It's the worst poll out there by far.
                  I agree that their's a conflict of interest in the Coaches' Poll, but that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that the final poll is made public, and coaches have been known to retaliate against other schools when they feel like they were screwed over in the previous year. If I were a coach, I would always vote in the manner that I feel would invite the least amount of retaliation. This year's biggest hack is James Franklin who voted Notre Dame #4 in the final poll, but Bob Stoops and Les Miles are notorious hacks as well. Nick Saban also displayed some hackery last year when he voted Oklahoma State #5 in the final poll. On the flip side, Brian Kelly voted Alabama #1 most of the season until they lost and even then he still didn't vote his Irish #1 until Kansas State and Oregon lost and they were the last team standing. Similarly, in 2009 Chris Petersen voted his team #4 on the final poll despite having an undefeated season.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                    This year's stupidity boils down to a) several top teams being ineligible for the post-season and b) big conferences becoming too big (and their divisions not always evenly balanced). Thus when you go down to the 5th- or 6th-best conference champion, you're pretty far down the list. Whether this is a one-year anomaly or the new normal is anyone's guess.

                    I have a problem with bowls in general, not necessarily BCS bowls. I think the entire bowl system should be wiped out and replaced with an NCAA playoff. There are so many reasons I believe this, and you don't want to hear all of them, but mostly it comes down to one thing: the money would be handed out like NCAA hoops tourney money, which is partly based on how many sports a school offers. Cutting a track team wouldn't be as appealing anymore.

                    If I were to create a playoff, I'd make sure the top four ranked conference champions got byes in the first round (to preserve the importance of regular-season wins) and I'd make sure the quarterfinals were played on New Year's Day in Pasadena, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Those games have traditions worth saving. The Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl or Famous Idaho Potato Bowl? Well, would YOU notice if they disappeared tomorrow?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                      In the coaches poll I have heard that some do not pay that much attention or spend too much effort until the end, and it is only the last poll that matters.

                      As for the comment that Wisconsin is only the 6th best Big Ten team - I beg to differ. Take out the games that are tied at regulation and there are no 'superior' teams to Wisconsin -- their only regular game loss was to Nebraska by 3 on the road -- followed by a 70-31 game that was for all the marbles.

                      I think that Bielema's weakness is control at the end of the game (as well as sometimes taking too long to adjust). Of course, losing your only respectable quarterback (which took several weeks to uncover in the first place) is a problem that will likely be a big factor in Pasadena. If Russel Wilson had one more year Wisconsin would possibly be playing instead of Alabama, since even without him they were 11 points from a perfect season.

                      Also, of all the primary games, I think that the Rose Bowl has the tightest odds. Thus, #1 ND is about a 10 point underdog to #2 while #xxx is only a touchdown underdog to #(6) Stanford. (Hi Marlow )

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                        Originally posted by Mighty Favog
                        New Year's Day in Pasadena, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Those games have traditions worth saving. ?
                        Yep. I liked it when there were only four Bowl games. Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose, all on Jan 1 and scheduled so you could watch em all.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                          Originally posted by lonewolf
                          Originally posted by Mighty Favog
                          New Year's Day in Pasadena, Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Those games have traditions worth saving. ?
                          Yep. I liked it when there were only four Bowl games. Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose, all on Jan 1 and scheduled so you could watch em all.
                          I agree with the stupidity and meaninglessness of the current structure, but what you describe above was never entirely true:

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_bowl_games

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                            Interesting chart. I did not know Sun Bowl started in 1934, two years before Cotton Bowl. In any case, there were only five bowls pre-Gator in 1945 and Capitol One in 1946.. and I don't remember even being aware of any bowls other than the Big 4 until Fiesta in 1971..

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                              In defense of lonewolf (and my own recollection), there was always some 'lesser' bowls floating around, but the one she mentioned were the only 'important' ones.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

                                Originally posted by Marlow
                                In defense of lonewolf (and my own recollection), there was always some 'lesser' bowls floating around, but the one she mentioned were the only 'important' ones.
                                Well yeah - they still for the most part are the only "important" ones, which is kind of the point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X