06 Dec 11
Originally posted by quackquackLMAO! Yeah, the Big East is a "major" conference. The funny thing is they desperately need Boise State to have any chance of retaining their automatic BCS bid since they are losing so many programs. The result is truly ironic: Boise State been stiffed out of the BCS 4 of the last 6 years while going 49-3, BUT because they have such a strong record it might very well save the Big East from dropping out of the BCS auto spot.
Looks like Boise is joining the Big East. It will allow them if their record is sufficient to play in better bowl games.
The NCAA is really a joke.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderNot all above .500 teams are the same. The top teams that Alabama played are better than the top teams LSU played. Arkansas is the number 6 team in the nation after their loss to Alabama, OSU does not have a win like that. Alabama lost in OT to the #1 team the nation. OSU's lost to a six loss team. Alabama went on the road and beat Penn State. OSU doesn't have an out of conference win like that. I don't think it is illogical to be more impressed by Alabama then by OSU.
As I stated on page 21:
Alabama's out of conference schedule included mid-major creampuffs Kent State and North Texas and non-Division I Georgia Southern. Even counting the last, 'Bama only beat 4 teams with a better than .500 record.
If Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma, they'll have 7 wins against teams with a better than .500 record and ...[text shortened]... ly is no reasonable argument that Alabama played a tougher schedule than Oklahoma State.
The Big East is certainly weak compared to the other AQs but if Boise joins as reported they will have a considerably harder schedule and will be rewarded come bowl time if they continue to have success.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by quackquackOSU crushed Oklahoma a team that would run Penn State off the field. They beat 5 Top 25 teams. Bama played Kent State. Whatever.
Not all above .500 teams are the same. The top teams that Alabama played are better than the top teams LSU played. Arkansas is the number 6 team in the nation after their loss to Alabama, OSU does not have a win like that. Alabama lost in OT to the #1 team the nation. OSU's lost to a six loss team. Alabama went on the road and beat Penn State. OS ...[text shortened]... derably harder schedule and will be rewarded come bowl time if they continue to have success.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYour right Oklahoma State played Lousiana Lafayette out of conference. I definitely should be impressed.
OSU crushed Oklahoma a team that would run Penn State off the field. They beat 5 Top 25 teams. Bama played Kent State. Whatever.
Maybe you are right that the Big East will continue its downward trend.
But I think that by joining a conference with teams like Cincinnati and Lousville (and West Virginia until they eventually leave) plus whoever else the big east can play and with automatic tie ins it would help with its in conference games and scheduling out of conference games. Adding the better teams in the Big East and getting rid of the bottom three teams like New Mexico, UNLV and Colorado State does change the conference significantly.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderBoise didn't play Houston. It makes a difference which teams actually play.
Yes, Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, UCF and Houston will join the Big East and be magically transformed into "major" schools when they play each other rather than "minors" when they do so now.🙄
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by quackquackLouisiana-Lafayette beat Alabama foe North Texas by 20 points.
Your right Oklahoma State played Lousiana Lafayette out of conference. I definitely should be impressed.
Maybe you are right that the Big East will continue its downward trend.
But I think that by joining a conference with teams like Cincinnati and Lousville (and West Virginia until they eventually leave) plus whoever else the big east can play and ...[text shortened]... m three teams like New Mexico, UNLV and Colorado State does change the conference significantly.
07 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you really arguing whether or not 'Bama is better than OSU? The Argument should be whether or not LSU is better or not...
Louisiana-Lafayette beat Alabama foe North Texas by 20 points.
Here is the logic... 'Bama barely lost to the number one team in the nation and the game was pretty even so if OSU is noticably better than 'Bama that would mean that OSU is noticably better than LSU.
PS
Weren't you arguing that Alabama was better than LSU earlier in the season? They lost to them but still.. I think a rematch would go to 'Bama.
07 Dec 11
The BCS system as currently concocted is clearly flawed, and if the LSU-Bama rematch is as much of a snooze-fest as their over-hyped regular season game, this year's "national championship" game could be the final nail in the coffin. Some experts are predicting moving to a "plus one" 4 team playoff starting after the 2013 season:
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/12/5/2612164/bcs-championship-2011-2012-college-football-playoff/in/2187481
However, the main problem with college football is that there are too many teams. There is just no way to reliably determine a "champion" from among 120 teams which each play only 12 games.
07 Dec 11
However, the main problem with college football is that there are too many teams. There is just no way to reliably determine a "champion" from among 120 teams which each play only 12 games.[/b]I agree that the main problem with determining a champion is number of teams vs. number of games and to be honest the old system where the Rose Bowl had the Pac 10 vs. the Big 10 winner and you had a best team among the 20 was a better system than it get credit for (you could obviously have an SEC - Big 12 game). Now we have conferences where teams like Georgia don't even play the three best teams in their conference in the regular season so by the end of the season you still don't even know how to rate teams within their own conference.
It might help if we had better pre-season games or even a challange system where every Big 12 team plays a Pac 10 team and you could see if one conference is significantly better than the other.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by tomtom232I thought Alabama would beat LSU. They didn't. A mulligan is ridiculous when there are other worthy teams.
Are you really arguing whether or not 'Bama is better than OSU? The Argument should be whether or not LSU is better or not...
Here is the logic... 'Bama barely lost to the number one team in the nation and the game was pretty even so if OSU is noticably better than 'Bama that would mean that OSU is noticably better than LSU.
PS
Weren't you argu ...[text shortened]... U earlier in the season? They lost to them but still.. I think a rematch would go to 'Bama.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by richjohnsonEvery other division in college football solves this problem so it isn't insurmountable. Obviously the bowls would have to be used in a playoff system somehow though.
The BCS system as currently concocted is clearly flawed, and if the LSU-Bama rematch is as much of a snooze-fest as their over-hyped regular season game, this year's "national championship" game could be the final nail in the coffin. Some experts are predicting moving to a "plus one" 4 team playoff starting after the 2013 season:
http://www.sbnation. ...[text shortened]... ay to reliably determine a "champion" from among 120 teams which each play only 12 games.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderCollege basketball has more games, it has a tournament and the whole regular season is 100% a joke. It never really matters if you win any particular game unless you are trying to be the 68th best team. College football has the best regular season of any sport and it should make sure that it isn't ruined.
Every other division in college football solves this problem so it isn't insurmountable. Obviously the bowls would have to be used in a playoff system somehow though.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by quackquackI'm not talking about basketball. I'm talking about the other Divisions in football. Perhaps you aren't aware, but there does exist playoffs in I-A (or whatever it's called now), II and III. They are going on NOW. No one in their right mind claims having them somehow "ruins" the regular season. If participation in the playoffs was dependent on winning your conference or being in the top 8 teams that didn't (assuming a 16 team playoff), the importance of the regular season would be maintained.
College basketball has more games, it has a tournament and the whole regular season is 100% a joke. It never really matters if you win any particular game unless you are trying to be the 68th best team. College football has the best regular season of any sport and it should make sure that it isn't ruined.
Division I's "best" regular season is absolutely ruined by its inability to have its Championship decided on the field.
08 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIts simply not true that playoffs would make things better.
I'm not talking about basketball. I'm talking about the other Divisions in football. Perhaps you aren't aware, but there does exist playoffs in I-A (or whatever it's called now), II and III. They are going on NOW. No one in their right mind claims having them somehow "ruins" the regular season. If participation in the playoffs was dependent on winning yo ...[text shortened]... n is absolutely ruined by its inability to have its Championship decided on the field.
Would the LSU - Alabama game have mattered at all? Would the Stanford - Oregon game have mattered at all? Would Oregon and LSU have even played if each could have an extra loss but without the loss they would be in the top eight. In fact LSU could have lost two games and still been in the top 8 or 3 or 4 and been in the top 16. When a system makes it so that there is little differnce between going 12-0 than 8-4 it is simply a dumb system.
If there was an eight team playoff and Arkansas was picked over your soft scheduled Boise team you'd still be crying.