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

  • 26mi235
    replied
    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.]

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce Kritzler
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

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

    Leave a comment:


  • dukehjsteve
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • preston
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by odelltrclan
    Then you have the likes of the SEC only playing 8 conference games while all other major conferences generally play 9 ensuring them generally of 1 less loss than the other conferences and that almost always assures higher rankings.
    The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are the only conferences that play nine conference games.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by preston
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.
    ...The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity...
    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    5) Penn State hasn't gone undefeated since the BCS came into existence.

    Leave a comment:


  • j-a-m
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by gh
    Only five of the top 11 teams in the final BCS standings will be among the 10 teams participating in the five BCS bowl games....>>
    The top six teams play in a BCS bowl this year, not just five, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • j-a-m
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by gh
    <<...We have an unranked team (Wisconsin) that had the sixth-best record in the Big Ten playing Stanford in the Rose Bowl.
    That's based on NCAA sanctions against Ohio State, though; so at least for this one the BCS is not to blame.

    Leave a comment:


  • odelltrclan
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Sorry, but all I can say is cry me a river.

    The BCS was formed in part because the big conferences wanted to prevent smaller conference teams from getting a slice of their pie. Agreements were made to ensure that at least every major conference got an at large BCS bid (which I agree with) and that agreement was about money. Agreements were also made that no more than 2 BCS bowl bids went to any conference and I agree with that.

    The rankings are imperfect. Then you have the likes of the SEC only playing 8 conference games while all other major conferences generally play 9 ensuring them generally of 1 less loss than the other conferences and that almost always assures higher rankings.

    If you don't like the current format, then the only response is to go to a true playoff. My personal opinion is to go to one anyway.

    As for poor old Georgia, well, someone made the decision to take Florida over them so too bad too sad. UCLA was also almost in the Rose Bowl and ends up in a toilet bowl and they looked to be the better team last week. I think they dogged it the previous week, not showing their full hand because the previous weeks game was meaningless for them.

    This system, based on who can grab the most $$$$$ brought us to this so we all simply have to live with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Helen S
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    What percentage of D1 teams go to a bowl game? How many XC teams and/or individuals would go to nationals if the same percentage were used?

    I hate that term "bowl eligible." I assume it means at least you won 1 more game than you lost. Does everyone plan an odd number of games?

    Leave a comment:


  • preston
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.
    ...The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity...
    It doesn't always reward excellence either.
    -Boise State 2010.
    -Utah '09. '09 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by Marlow
    It really WILL take an 8-team play-off to right this ship. But even in that case, the hottest team, TA&M, is SOL.
    Saying that a team is hot is just another way of saying that it played like crap at the beginning of the season. The one thing that I like about college football above all other college and pro sports is that it doesn't reward mediocrity. 9-7 teams should never be allowed to play for the Super Bowl and Villanova should have never gotten the chance to catch lightning in a bottle against Georgetown.

    Leave a comment:


  • preston
    replied
    Re: let's talk the stupidity that's the BCS

    Originally posted by Marlow
    It would, however, be fun to see

    ND-LSU (LSU wins)
    Bama-Ga (Been there, done that, but the ending was tantalizing for a rematch)
    Fla-Stanford
    Ore-KsSt (Meant to be!)

    then

    LSU-Ore
    SU-Bama

    then

    Ore-Bama, which is better than the ND-Bama game we're stuck with.
    Seems about right to me.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X