BCS Insanity

You continue to overweight the one poor game that Ohio State played in two years when talking about them or the Big Ten. You don't talk about Kansas or Oregon last year when talking about who deserves to be in a BCS game and your expectation of Ohio State should not be based on one game in two years.

Originally posted by jofaz
You continue to overweight the one poor game that Ohio State played in two years when talking about them or the Big Ten. You don't talk about Kansas or Oregon last year when talking about who deserves to be in a BCS game and your expectation of Ohio State should not be based on one game in two years.

Obviously you haven't bothered to read the thread. I've pointed out the following FACTS regarding the Big Ten:

1. That no Big Ten team has beaten an above .500 team from a BCS conference THIS YEAR;

2. That only 2 Big Ten teams have won the national championship in the last 39 years;

3. That the Big Ten has had a losing record in 6 of the last 7 years in bowl games and is 20-27 in that time;

4. That the Big Ten is 17-29 in the last 46 Rose Bowls.

"One poor game"???????????? Hardly.

There aren't that many out of conference games. Michigan lost to Oregon and Illinois lost to Missouri. and I am not arguing that the big 10 is bette in either . Three big ten teams scheduled and beat Notre Dame. Before the season started you would have thought this would be a good win.. especially if you knew that they beat UCLA. Ohio State beat a Pac 10 team. When the schedule was made was it clea that they would be bad?
Bowl game records are slightly misleading because Big 10 teams with big following play in more bowl games than similar teams with smaller following. Therefore Iowa might make a bowl game (because their fans are willing to travel) and would be a big underdog. So more than half of the time they lose. A few games below .500 when you play road games to a slightly better team isn't a joke.
The Rose Bowl especially is a road game. It is complete b.s to think it is a neutral game when USC (which probably should be on probation over Reggie Bush but that's a different issue) plays. Furthermore, for many years the best pac ten was better than the best big 10 team. But that hardly means the conference stinks.
Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue and Illinois and Michigan are solid teams. If Ohio State beats all of them, they certainly aren't Hawaii. This year Ohio state is the number one team in the nation. I am not sure how this effects a matchup with Kansas or Oregon.

Originally posted by jofaz
There aren't that many out of conference games. Michigan lost to Oregon and Illinois lost to Missouri. and I am not arguing that the big 10 is bette in either . Three big ten teams scheduled and beat Notre Dame. Before the season started you would have thought this would be a good win.. especially if you knew that they beat UCLA. Ohio State beat a Pac 10 ...[text shortened]... ber one team in the nation. I am not sure how this effects a matchup with Kansas or Oregon.

It won't; if they play either one, they'll get killed.

I don't buy your bowl game excuses; most of the time teams with similar records or final standing in the conference play each other in the bowls. That the Big Ten loses more than half, and has done so consistently, is strong evidence that it is an inferior conference.

I have no idea if any of the teams you mention are "solid" teams; Michigan, the #2 team in the Big Ten, lost to a non-Div 1 team and then got massacred by Oregon 39-7, both at home! We'll have to see how the Big Ten does in the bowl games; they were 2-5 last year and I doubt they'll do much better this year. And I've already said that if OSU stays unbeaten now they deserve to play in the BCS Championship Game; just don't be surprised if they do that they lose big.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You continue to be ridiculous. BC beat a top ten team; was that a fluke?

Some people just decide who they think is the best team and the results don't matter. But that's no way to decide a Championship; LSU lost and Kansas hasn't. They both play in BCS automatic conferences. Who deserves the shot at this point is obvious and it ain't LSU.

EDIT: Ma ...[text shortened]... d the Champion last year because their loss in the BCS Championship was just an "off day".

You are the one who looks ridiculous. Let me spell it out slowly for you so you can understand what I have alluded to. Take any team you want and put them up against 10 consecutive top 10 teams. The teams that you would expect to prevail in the majority of those matchups would be the best teams. Because ANY team can beat any team on a given day, yes I call wins like BC's against a top 10 team a fluke. The same as if Hawaii beat one. Hell, based on your arguement, we have a couple of Div II teams that should be in the BCS mix because they upset rated Div I teams. Give me a break!! I am not trying to belittle a team because they go undefeated, but I won't shortchange a team that played a far tougher schedule and lost a game or two in the process due to playing superior competition. Wouldn't you say that was a reasonable assessment? Teams that emerge from the four major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10 & SEC) tend to have records with blemishes on them due to the battles they face within their own conferences. I purposely did not include the Big East because they don't have the depth of football powerhouses that the other conferences possess regularly. There is no way I am ever going to give a Boise State, BYU, Hawaii, BC, etc.... the benefit of top tier solely on the basis of their undefeated record, unless they played monster tough schedules. Sure, there will be a year ever so often that truly merits consideration, but not normally.

I am not "some people" and results do matter. But within reason. Kansas would get my support if they run the table. I do not believe they will. LSU has the best team in the country right now IMO. Period. They lost a triple overtime game against a tough and rated Kentucky team (another SEC foe). As I said before, it is tough as hell to run the slate, but quality of schedule has alot more creedence than being undefeated against the sisters of the poor.

Your idea of "who is deserving" of a shot makes me think you believe that the world is fair and life is fair. Wake up Pollyanna!! Don't you believe the National Championship game should showcase the two "best teams" and would produce the best match up, rather than one Powerhouse mopping up the field of an undefeated team who played a weaker schedule and doesn't stack up? Granted, they could pull off a fluke and pull a David vs. Goliath, but those tend to be few and far between.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
You are the one who looks ridiculous. Let me spell it out slowly for you so you can understand what I have alluded to. Take any team you want and put them up against 10 consecutive top 10 teams. The teams that you would expect to prevail in the majority of those matchups would be the best teams. Because [b]ANY team can beat any team on a given day, ...[text shortened]... off a fluke and pull a David vs. Goliath, but those tend to be few and far between.[/b]

I don't know why they bother to have a season; according to you, it's an easy matter to decide who the best teams are. And since the results are so "flukeish", we'd stand a better chance of the teams smart people like you think are the best by avoiding all those pesky games played in September, October, November, etc. etc.

Last year the same arguments were made to deprive Boise State (which had blown out a good Pac-10 team during its season though I'm sure that was just a "fluke"😉 of a shot in the championship game. So what happened? They played the champions of a "powerhouse" conference and defeated them in one of the most memorable college games ever played. And the two "best" teams played in the Championship Game and one got blown off the field in a totally uninteresting rout. A Boise State-Ohio State game could hardly have been worse.

My own personal opinion is that there should be an 8 team playoff; the 6 champions of the BCS Conferences and two teams from the mid-majors or independents. Teams that can't win their own cnference shouldn't have a shot at the NCAA Football Championship. And whether you'll admit it or not, much of the charm and interest of March Madness is watching the inevitable upsets where a mid-major knocks off a "powerhouse" conference team that "experts" like you gave them no shot to. I'd like to see that in football too.

Originally posted by no1marauder
smart people like you are the best .

I don't know why you insist on running out extremes, or picking out bits of an arguement. I have done this with your previous statement and found one truth that you stated, and I thank you.

I agree with you that a playoff system would be much better. But, if they go to a playoff schedule, then all conference Championship games need to be tossed out, which is why we will probably never see a playoff system due to lost revenue to the conferences that have championship games.

Also, the # 3 rated independent will gripe that they were unfairly left out of the BCS picture. You will never satisfay everyone. But I would love to see a playoff.

I hate the playoff idea. It ruins the importance of the regular season. I also think it is absolutely 100% crazy to put two independent teams in a playoff and leave out high quality runner ups like the second best team out of Missouri-Kansas-Oklahoma or USC-Oregon-Arizona state.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
I hate the playoff idea. It ruins the importance of the regular season. I also think it is absolutely 100% crazy to put two independent teams in a playoff and leave out high quality runner ups like the second best team out of Missouri-Kansas-Oklahoma or USC-Oregon-Arizona state.

That is my point....no matter where you draw the cutoff, someone deserving will be left out. But, a playoff will get more teams into the fray. The BCS is a quasi-joke as it stands. The way they did it prior to the BCS was worse since it was a popularity contest where the writers from the east went against the writers from the west decided the No. 1's and it was difficult as hell to get National Champions form anywhere but the two coasts. There really is no perfect solution, but a playoff system would make the most sense. It won't happen though because the schools don't want to give up the gate for two of their games that they would have to give up in order to incorporate a playoff system. It is all about the money these days, right?

i know i am in the minority, but i'd give up on the idea of national championship. I liked when the Rose bowl was the Big 10 vs. ten 10 and you would have a champion out 21 teams. They all played similar type conference schedules and sometimes even similar out of conference games. You might never know if they team would beat an SEC-ACC winner. But most people aren't happy with the BCS anyway.

I love the BCS. People should be more upset with the polls in my opinion.

Originally posted by telerion
I love the BCS. People should be more upset with the polls in my opinion.

Agreed. For example, having BC rated #2 before loosing to FS was an absolute joke in my opinion. Granted, they were unbeaten previously, but just barely. There were a whole slew of teams that I could see were easilty better than they including Florida that fell from grace long ago after 3 some losses. Before that they had USF as #2 because they were ubeaten. Then we had the likes of Cincinnati beat them as they woke us to the reality of the situation. Being an OSU fan I was praying for either team to remain #2 but deep down I knew it only to be a pipe dream. Neither team was good enough to remain unbeaten. Now OSU is looking down a double barreled shot gun with LSU and Oregon eagerly awaiting them. I am not saying that OSU can't beat them, however, I would say that to do so will take every thing they have and perhaps a little more. In fact, I fear Oregon more than I do LSU. However, if LSU remains unbeaten Oregon will not be given the time of day even though I think Oregon could take LSU. Then agin, what if the unthinkable happens and that team up north takes out my team? Then Oregon will get their shot at LSU, but lets not think it could happen shall we?

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
I hate the playoff idea. It ruins the importance of the regular season. I also think it is absolutely 100% crazy to put two independent teams in a playoff and leave out high quality runner ups like the second best team out of Missouri-Kansas-Oklahoma or USC-Oregon-Arizona state.

Why exactly should the no2 team in their own conference get a shot at being no1 in the nation???? And how would the concept I gave i.e. having the conference champions and two other worthy teams play for the championship "ruin" the regular season? It would make virtually every regular season game important in determining the national champion.

It is not that simple. Why would you go to a major conference when you can just be undefeated in the WAC? Often two top six teams are in the same conference. Some conference don't have all the teams play each other so the two top teams could have the same record (even undefeated) would you take only one? Would you encourage that? Three teams could all have one loss against each other (most likely to happen in the best conferences) are you go to use some stupid tie breaker? It is isn't a lottery. Weak conference teams need to join big the best conferences or play lots of out of conference game or no shot at the championship.

I will go on record now that my Buckeys have lost and say that I hope Oregon gets their shot at the NC. I think they should be #1 as well as Dixon on the team being the Heisman frontrunner.