OT: More BCS b.s.? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : OT: More BCS b.s.?



Swish
12-03-2006, 05:24 PM
Hard to believe that FL may actually be playing OSU for the (cough, cough) National Championship. I still say it's mostly because no many people (pollsters) want to see Michigan in a rematch with Ohio State, and not because UL deserves it. Yes, they beat three ranked teams, but all are in the SEC, a conference that is getting some votes based on reputation as opposed to strength this year. If they do get the nod, I'm pretty certain they'll get stomped by the Buckeyes.

How sweet was it watching USC get rattled by UCLA? You gotta love it baby! I really didn't expect that upset, but I'll take it.

Swish

3-LockBox
12-03-2006, 10:08 PM
At least niether Notre Dame nor USC will be involved in a championship game.

But having USC play Michigan in the Rose Bowl? Has that ever happened before?

BCS is still manipulated by bowl commities and media polls; they're looking at demographics and ratings potential, not 'who deserves what'?

kexodusc
12-04-2006, 04:33 AM
I dunno guys, how a team that can't even win its conference and got beat cleanly without any question by the eventual conference champs should even be considered in the BCS championship game is beyond me....as awe-inpiringly impressive as beating Michigan State, Minnesota, North Western, and Iowa is.
They had their chance to win the right to be there, and they blew it.

3-LockBox
12-04-2006, 09:38 AM
I dunno guys, how a team that can't even win its conference and got beat cleanly without any question by the eventual conference champs should even be considered in the BCS championship game is beyond me....as awe-inpiringly impressive as beating Michigan State, Minnesota, North Western, and Iowa is.
They had their chance to win the right to be there, and they blew it.

I think the BCS is supposed to ensure that the best two remaining teams are in the championship game. For all the detractors against Michigan being in that game, you can apply the same to Florida. Of course, nothing will ever be cut and dried about a BCS until there is a viable playoff system, which there will never be. Ohio State definately deserve to be there...its almost a shame to make them play another game to prove it.

Either have a playoff system, or abolish the BCS because the end of the football season is still rife with controversy, just like it was years ago before the BCS, which is just the way the bowl commities like it. All the BCS has achieved is rendering New Year's Day and all its bowls superfilious. I say, do away with the BCS, leave the championship to coaches and the media, and let NewYears be the last hurrah for college football, the way it used to be. That way you will have several teams trying to make a statement than just two.

Mr MidFi
12-04-2006, 01:10 PM
The BCS bowls, as a whole, are a disappointing anti-climax to a really great regular season. Having said that, I can see it either way in the Florida/Michigan debate...but if I had a vote, Michigan would get a second chance at 'em. Why? Because they are the second best team in the land. Period.

Oh, and...how 'bout them Demon Deacons!

MindGoneHaywire
12-04-2006, 02:09 PM
I agree. Measuring the strength of a team by who they lost to is considered weak, 'style points' or whatever, but I look at it this way:

Florida's only loss was to Auburn, a team that lost twice, including what I understood to be a relatively big upset to Georgia.

Michigan's only loss was, like Florida, on the road, but to the undisputed #1 team, who beat good & bad teams soundly, only struggling once (Ohio State at Illinois). Then again, although I would characterize what they did to Michigan at home constitutes a sound beating, as they were in command most of the game, it was still only decided by 3 points.

I think Michigan losing by 3 on the road at Ohio State is a stronger performance in their only loss than Florida's at Auburn. And I think it's a shame there will be no rematch. If you couldn't make a legitimate case that the Wolverines belonged there, that'd be one thing, but I say that's not the case, and because that's not the matchup, I think the BCS screwed up BIG TIME in robbing the game by virtue of a matchup that just doesn't make sense.

Strangely, I think Ohio State may well have a more difficult time with Florida than they might with Michigan...but all I have to say is, in spite of 4 years ago, this is the first season in the 35+ years I've been rooting for the Buckeyes that they've managed this type of a season. Bravo, Jim Tressel. I do wonder if he's in line with all NCAA regs & all that; if so, and if his recruits are academically sound, then I can even offer admiration with a clear conscience. In any case--go Buckeyes!

3-LockBox
12-04-2006, 02:48 PM
I prolly won't watch...

as a Michigan fan, I hate OSU

as a Tennessee fan, I hate Florida

An even bigger outrage, is how sh!tty teams like Alabama, Oklahoma St, Minnesota and Florida State get bowl bids just cuz they travel well. (all w/ 6-6 records)

I'll watch the Outback Bowl w/ Tennessee(9-3)-v-Penn St(8-4). Both teams were pretty decent this year. You could say that both teams lost their big games, but both lost to top 10 teams. Tennessee's only bad loss was at the hands of Arkansas, but both Florida and LSU needed last minute heroics to beat UT.

DariusNYC
12-04-2006, 03:00 PM
As a Michigan fan with a sense of perspective, I'm looking forward to the Rose Bowl and am glad we will be playing it against a top team, and against the Pac 10.

As (secondarily) a Florida fan, I'll be proudly rooting for them against Ohio State in the BCS Championship Game.

As a fan of College Football, I sure wish they'd go back to the old imperfect bowl system.

Duds
12-05-2006, 08:34 AM
Michigan got beat cleanly? How is losing by 3 points on the road to the #1 team in the nation getting beat cleanly? AND, that hit on Troy Smith was even more questionable considering the same type of hit happened in the USC/UCLS game, probabyl even worse, and was not called.

and, if the SEC didnt have a conference championship game, Florida would not have won their conference either


I dunno guys, how a team that can't even win its conference and got beat cleanly without any question by the eventual conference champs should even be considered in the BCS championship game is beyond me....as awe-inpiringly impressive as beating Michigan State, Minnesota, North Western, and Iowa is.
They had their chance to win the right to be there, and they blew it.

Duds
12-05-2006, 08:41 AM
ruined the BSC this year

For one, the coaches poll should have ZERo merit. the coaches DO NOT watch football games other than tape of the team they are preparing to play. AND, the coaches dont even vote, they have someone else vote for them. So how the hell can they base 1/3 of the rankings on a vote in which the coaches have no idea?

Secondly, it was talked about on the radio yesterday how some voters in the harris poll actually had florida ranked #1 just to prevent a Michigan/osu rematch from happening. To me, that is fixing the results. Its obvious people had an agenda.

And the people who say you shouldnt play for the national championship if you didnt win your conference need to realize that isnt in the BCS rule book! They also need to realize that a certain team, ahem, Notre Lame, doesnt even play in a conference, so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed in the title game if it comes down to them?

Florda is not that good, i dont care if they play in the SEC or not. Did you watch them play Arkansas? Not impressive at all. Arkansas handed them that game, and Florida had to use trick plays to score a lot of their points. Chris LEak is god awful too.

OSU is goign to stomp them, and then everyone will say, "oh maybe we made the wrong choice"

kexodusc
12-05-2006, 09:27 AM
Michigan got beat cleanly? How is losing by 3 points on the road to the #1 team in the nation getting beat cleanly? AND, that hit on Troy Smith was even more questionable considering the same type of hit happened in the USC/UCLS game, probabyl even worse, and was not called.

and, if the SEC didnt have a conference championship game, Florida would not have won their conference either
How were they anything but cleanly beat? Losing closely is still losing. When good teams play each other it often comes down to 3 pts or less. That's football. That last point is huge and separates better teams from worse teams. Sometimes that's all it takes to separate champ from chump. Being close doesn't mean much at all.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...if they won that game, we wouldn't be discussing whether Michigan deserved to be there. They'd be in. But they lost. Are they the #2 team in the nation? Maybe. Do they deserve to be at the BCS game? Maybe. But they controlled their own fate and lost the big game that would have iced it for them.. All I'm saying is I don't buy that their case was so much stronger than Florida's that they were robbed. I kind of think Florida had just as strong an argument. And as long as schedules have significant amount of intra-conference matchups, winning the conference has to mean a lot.
If by some miracle Florida wins, a lot of would be experts will be aweful quiet. What if OSU beat them a 2nd time? We'd have a raging controversy about how a team that already lost to the them was even there in the first place.
Michigan just had more tangible strikes against them than Florida - and in this less than perfectly scientific system that means they don't make it.

MindGoneHaywire
12-05-2006, 09:45 AM
I agree with the idea that they were beaten 'cleanly.' Ohio State led most of the game--pretty firmly. I think it was a two-posession game, at least, for the majority of the game.

Just because there was another call in another game, however, doesn't mean that hit on Troy Smith shouldn't have been called. The replay was pretty definitive. When the refs get it wrong, most of the time it's at least questioned by the television announcers. Who are hardly infallible, but it's extremely rare when a bad call is not verbally challenged given their ability to view multiple angles.

I do think, for the reasons I outlined in my above post, that their case was indeed stronger than Florida's. Robbed is probably too strong a term, but still...

a 3-point loss, on the road, against the #1 team in the country, when both #1 & #2 had each struggled in only one game during the year...

vs. a 10-point loss, on the road, to a 2-loss team that had the crap kicked out of it by unranked Georgia.

I'd say 'do the math,' but the math in college football is misleading given the lack of parity in the typical conference scheduling. But then the BCS is based on math, isn't it?

The best I can offer is that, absent a playoff, there's a month that could see a Florida-Michigan game, with the winner going up against Ohio St. Nah, guess not.

Duds
12-05-2006, 09:49 AM
"beat cleanly" is 21-0. not losing by 3 points on the road. Did Florida cleanly beat Arkansas? Hell no.

The BCS is a mess, thats what it comes down to.

QUOTE=kexodusc]How were they anything but cleanly beat? Losing closely is still losing. When good teams play each other it often comes down to 3 pts or less. That's football. That last point is huge and separates better teams from worse teams. Sometimes that's all it takes to separate champ from chump. Being close doesn't mean much at all.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...if they won that game, we wouldn't be discussing whether Michigan deserved to be there. They'd be in. But they lost. Are they the #2 team in the nation? Maybe. Do they deserve to be at the BCS game? Maybe. But they controlled their own fate and lost the big game that would have iced it for them.. All I'm saying is I don't buy that their case was so much stronger than Florida's that they were robbed. I kind of think Florida had just as strong an argument. And as long as schedules have significant amount of intra-conference matchups, winning the conference has to mean a lot.
If by some miracle Florida wins, a lot of would be experts will be aweful quiet. What if OSU beat them a 2nd time? We'd have a raging controversy about how a team that already lost to the them was even there in the first place.
Michigan just had more tangible strikes against them than Florida - and in this less than perfectly scientific system that means they don't make it.[/QUOTE]

Duds
12-05-2006, 09:55 AM
so they led most of the game, why couldnt they hold onto their 14 point lead? oh let me guess, they had three turnovers that kept it close. well guess what, dont turn the ball over!! It makes me laugh all these people who say OSU had three dumb turnovers. When is a turnover ever smart?

did you see both hits? the hot on the UCLA QB was much worse, and even the announcers mentioned the fact that it probabyl should have been called since the one in the michigan game was. I'm not saying that call cost Michigan the game, but to me it was definitely a questionable call. Two weeks ago Vince Young got smoked with a helmet to helmet hit that wasnt called too.

I just dont think it was right for people to keep Michigan #2 all along, until the final week of the season, and now all of the sudden they think Florida is better because of a sloppy win over an over rated Arkansas team?


I agree with the idea that they were beaten 'cleanly.' Ohio State led most of the game--pretty firmly. I think it was a two-posession game, at least, for the majority of the game.

Just because there was another call in another game, however, doesn't mean that hit on Troy Smith shouldn't have been called. The replay was pretty definitive. When the refs get it wrong, most of the time it's at least questioned by the television announcers. Who are hardly infallible, but it's extremely rare when a bad call is not verbally challenged given their ability to view multiple angles.

I do think, for the reasons I outlined in my above post, that their case was indeed stronger than Florida's. Robbed is probably too strong a term, but still...

a 3-point loss, on the road, against the #1 team in the country, when both #1 & #2 had each struggled in only one game during the year...

vs. a 10-point loss, on the road, to a 2-loss team that had the crap kicked out of it by unranked Georgia.

I'd say 'do the math,' but the math in college football is misleading given the lack of parity in the typical conference scheduling. But then the BCS is based on math, isn't it?

The best I can offer is that, absent a playoff, there's a month that could see a Florida-Michigan game, with the winner going up against Ohio St. Nah, guess not.

MindGoneHaywire
12-05-2006, 10:13 AM
>"beat cleanly" is 21-0. not losing by 3 points on the road.

21-0 is a shutout, and implies a game that was dominated by the winning team. We're splitting hairs already here. I don't disagree with his use of the term 'cleanly' (I used 'soundly' upthread myself) because Michigan was never in command of the game, not even when the momentum shifted their way.


>so they led most of the game, why couldnt they hold onto their 14 point lead?

Oh, come on. Michigan was the #2 team in the country, remember? If they'd held onto that 14-point lead, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? That would've been a pretty clear indication that another team could've credibly leapfrogged them in the BCS.


>oh let me guess, they had three turnovers that kept it close. well guess what, dont turn the ball over!! It makes me laugh all these people who say OSU had three dumb turnovers.

Again, when you're playing the #2 team in the country...it's more likely you're going to make mistakes. Calling them 'dumb' turnovers denies credit to Michigan, which doesn't make sense to me. They were the two best teams in the country at the time, so I don't know why it would be a surprise that the game would've ended closely, why there would've been momentum shifts, why even a favored home team would've had difficulty maintaining a two-touchdown lead.


>did you see both hits? the hot on the UCLA QB was much worse, and even the announcers mentioned the fact that it probabyl should have been called since the one in the michigan game was.

Yes, I did. I'm not sure why the argument that the hit in the OSU-MU game shouldn't have been called is supposed to make more sense than the argument than the hit in the USC-UCLA game should've been. The hit on Smith was helmet-to-helmet, which unless I'm mistaken wasn't the case with the hit in the USC game. If you have any familiarity with the rules on helmet-to-helmet hits, I can't see how it could reasonably be suggested that the call was in any way questionable, regardless of whether or not there was a blown call in another game.

No argument from me that Florida being more highly ranked than Michigan is BS.

Woochifer
12-06-2006, 11:11 AM
As a Bruin, I had been mostly focused on basketball! :)

I absoutely did not see that UCLA-USC game unfolding the way that it did, but of course I've been absolutely giddy that it did. I thought the Bruins would have to play a perfect game and go four downs every time they got into the red zone, because as good as the Bruin defense has been, no way did I see them holding the SC offense to only one scoring drive. But, the Bruins did not play a perfect game. They went for field goals twice in the red zone, yet the defense DID hold SC to only one scoring drive (the other two points were from a holding call in the end zone that resulted in a safety). I think I'll scream if I hear "that's why they play the games" one more time, but that's the truth!

As far as the BCS goes, I say junk the whole thing and either go back to the traditional bowl tie-ins, or implement a real playoff. I absolutely hate that the Rose Bowl has been turned into a consolation prize. USC-Michigan is a traditional Pac-10/Big-10 matchup, but neither team wants to be there. That's just wrong.

Michigan IS the second best team in America. They were one personal foul call away from potentially beating Ohio State. All the vote switching and classless lobbying by Urban Meyer illustrate everything that's wrong with the BCS. The voters should be voting on which team ranks where. But, the number of votes that got switched indicate that people were trying to game the system in order to get the matchup that they wanted to see, rather than the matchup that hooks up the two best teams. Michigan simply had the misfortune of scheduling their last game on November 18, which is actually when the season SHOULD end for most teams.

The BCS sucks because it depends on a lucky draw with exactly two teams emerging as the clear-cut best teams.

A playoff would of course settle all of this. The NCAA basketball tourney is already the biggest sporting spectacle in America (aside from maybe the Super Bowl). Imagine how much drama would be bled from the tournament if the Final Four was selected by polls and computer rankings. The huge upsets and compelling games make the tournament what it is, and I can't think of any time where the #1 and #2-ranked teams met in the NCAA finals -- almost always one or both of them will get knocked off along the way.

Imagine how huge a 16-team playoff tournament in football would be. Anything can happen, and with a single-elimination tournament format, I can see plenty of upsets and great games unfolding. I doubt that a playoff will result in a lot of #1 v. #2 championship matchups, but who cares? It will all get settled on the field where it belongs.

dean_martin
12-06-2006, 01:08 PM
I can't believe Michigan fans are whining about not being number 2! That kills me! This is one year in which there is no need for an extra "championship" game. OSU is #1 with no losses. Both Michigan and Florida have one loss, but Florida has more wins than Michigan. I know you're going to say, "but...but...but..." But WHAT? Even if OSU kills FL, it won't matter because OSU beat Michigan too. All you can argue is we should have been number 2! Geez, things could have played out to where Mich would play ND in the BCS "championship" game. Nobody but Mich and ND fans would want to see that again either.

Oh...and I didn't hear too much complaining when USC jumped to #2 after week 14. Lesson for Michigan - don't schedule your last game with 2 weeks left in the season.

Please, the whining is unbecoming of Michigan fans. You're starting to sound like Auburn fans of a couple years ago when the Aubs went UNDEFEATED but were left out of the title game.

Duds
12-07-2006, 09:25 AM
Get a clue. Gee, Florida has more wins. Wow, maybe because they played more games?!

Do you think Michigan or the Big Ten decides how the schedule works?


I can't believe Michigan fans are whining about not being number 2! That kills me! This is one year in which there is no need for an extra "championship" game. OSU is #1 with no losses. Both Michigan and Florida have one loss, but Florida has more wins than Michigan. I know you're going to say, "but...but...but..." But WHAT? Even if OSU kills FL, it won't matter because OSU beat Michigan too. All you can argue is we should have been number 2! Geez, things could have played out to where Mich would play ND in the BCS "championship" game. Nobody but Mich and ND fans would want to see that again either.

Oh...and I didn't hear too much complaining when USC jumped to #2 after week 14. Lesson for Michigan - don't schedule your last game with 2 weeks left in the season.

Please, the whining is unbecoming of Michigan fans. You're starting to sound like Auburn fans of a couple years ago when the Aubs went UNDEFEATED but were left out of the title game.

dean_martin
12-07-2006, 01:59 PM
Exactly, Duds. Every time you step on the field you're in jeopardy of losing, especially in a conference championship game. For example, Tennessee went into the 2001 SEC championship game ranked #2. All they had to do was beat LSU, which was ranked in the 20's, to play for the national championship in the Rose Bowl, but Tennessee lost! Big-10 fans might not put much emphasis on conference championship games because the Big-10 doesn't have one; however, it means something to many others and apparently to some voters. (I think I've found a clue.)

BTW, if Michigan and the Big-10 don't have any control over how their football schedules work, then they're the ones who need to get a clue - a big, fat raging clue! I betcha scheduling will be a topic of conversation at the Big-10 meetings in the Spring.

But I suspect you're dead wrong (clueless), Duds, on how the Big-10 and its schools manage their schedules. They just screwed up by scheduling the conference's biggest rivalry game for 2 weeks prior to the end of the season.

Let me add this: my sarcasm is due in large part to my own favorite team's disappointing season and coaching fiasco. I'd much rather be in a Michigan fan's shoes complaining about how we got robbed by the BCS rather than wondering if my school's AD can hire a coach - any coach.

Swish
12-09-2006, 09:44 AM
>"beat cleanly" is 21-0. not losing by 3 points on the road.

21-0 is a shutout, and implies a game that was dominated by the winning team. We're splitting hairs already here. I don't disagree with his use of the term 'cleanly' (I used 'soundly' upthread myself) because Michigan was never in command of the game, not even when the momentum shifted their way.

Again, when you're playing the #2 team in the country...it's more likely you're going to make mistakes. Calling them 'dumb' turnovers denies credit to Michigan, which doesn't make sense to me. They were the two best teams in the country at the time, so I don't know why it would be a surprise that the game would've ended closely, why there would've been momentum shifts, why even a favored home team would've had difficulty maintaining a two-touchdown lead.

>did you see both hits? the hot on the UCLA QB was much worse, and even the BS.
..at least be a man and cast his vote instead of sitting on his thumbs. By not trying to piss off anyone, he pissed off everyone. Before their game against Texas he lied and said he had voted them # 1, when he had actually voted for his own team, which is fine. But why lie about it? So his vote is used all year in the Coaches Poll to influence rankings, but he abstains when it matters most? He should at least support the Big 10, but no. He's a typical weasel and it will catch up with him some day.

Swish - I was away all week and thus my late post.

3-LockBox
12-09-2006, 11:55 AM
my sarcasm is due in large part to my own favorite team's disappointing season and coaching fiasco. I'd much rather be in a Michigan fan's shoes complaining about how we got robbed by the BCS rather than wondering if my school's AD can hire a coach - any coach.


Maybe they could go crawling back to Mike Price...:ciappa:




My blood runs deep ORANGE :ihih: GO VOLS!