BCS screws it up again: Ohio St. vs. Florida in Championship
- Thread starter muzikool
- Start date
- Status
Florida was the team predicted to go pretty much all weekend after USC lost to UCLA
Playoff system may come into place once the current contract is up, but they can't do anything until then. Latest I have heard about it is the commissioner is actually already thinking about proposing it for when the time is near.
Playoff system may come into place once the current contract is up, but they can't do anything until then. Latest I have heard about it is the commissioner is actually already thinking about proposing it for when the time is near.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,406
Doesn't make a difference, If Michigan wanted to go, they should have won the conference, i.e beat OSU. They didn't, outside of OSU who has Michigan played? The big 10 is just OSU and Michigan...the rest of the league sucked, you can mention Wisonsin, but you me, and three other guys could beat their schedule and still finish 10-2.
Additionally that 3 point loss was much worse. Michigan was getting spanked and scored some garbage points to make that game look close, it was'nt a close game at all. Mcihgan was exposed by OSU, and will be again by any team, that can do more than run right at you.
Additionally that 3 point loss was much worse. Michigan was getting spanked and scored some garbage points to make that game look close, it was'nt a close game at all. Mcihgan was exposed by OSU, and will be again by any team, that can do more than run right at you.
Last edited:
Michigan loses by 3 AT Ohio State. Florida wasn't even in the discussion two weeks ago -- it was going to be Michigan or USC vs. Ohio State. USC loses and then Florida sneaks in ahead of Michigan, probably because Florida has been playing recently and Michigan hasn't. Also, Florida's coach has been quite vocal about why they deserve to be in the title game. That's his right, and Michigan's coach decides to keep quite and let the BCS do its job without begging for votes.
High school football, pro football, college basketball, pro basketball, college baseball, pro baseball -- all these have a playoff system. College football is the only one without it, and it needs one else we have this discussion every year for eternity.
High school football, pro football, college basketball, pro basketball, college baseball, pro baseball -- all these have a playoff system. College football is the only one without it, and it needs one else we have this discussion every year for eternity.
and how would you propose a workable playoffs for college football?
How many teams?
A 16 team field in a standard bracket would take 5 weeks to complete.. most seasons are only about 12-14 weeks. So, is it feasible to shorten the regular season? Most conferences would not approve that. Make them play more games? 5 weeks is an almost 30% increase to their schedule. A lot of teams/schools will not want that many more games on their schedule.
And that's only 32 teams.. who decides who gets to play in the playoffs? Make each conference send only their conference champs? What about conferences that don't have conference playoffs? (Also, if that's the case, you still wouldn't have a Mich/OhioSt title game since they are in the same conference).
I just don't see the whole of college football agreeing on a workable playoff system.
While the BCS is crap, I think it's more workable than instituting a playoff system might be.
How many teams?
A 16 team field in a standard bracket would take 5 weeks to complete.. most seasons are only about 12-14 weeks. So, is it feasible to shorten the regular season? Most conferences would not approve that. Make them play more games? 5 weeks is an almost 30% increase to their schedule. A lot of teams/schools will not want that many more games on their schedule.
And that's only 32 teams.. who decides who gets to play in the playoffs? Make each conference send only their conference champs? What about conferences that don't have conference playoffs? (Also, if that's the case, you still wouldn't have a Mich/OhioSt title game since they are in the same conference).
I just don't see the whole of college football agreeing on a workable playoff system.
While the BCS is crap, I think it's more workable than instituting a playoff system might be.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,406
Florida was in the discussion, only if USC stumbled (which they did.) Florida had to beat Arkansas in the title game to be considered, they did. If you want to blame anybody, blame the guy who gave you Michigans schedule Vanderbilt, Cengtral Michigan, Notre Dame and Ball State. Only one tough out of conference opponent, Whereas USC played a ranked
Nebraska, Ranked Arkansas, and a ranked Notre Dame. Florida, played a ranked Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU and a ranked South Carolina. So what's the beef?
If you are looking at that 3 points at Ohio state, Michigan scored Garbage in a blow out, perhaps you watched the game? Was there any ever doubt? Michigan made it close, but that only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
Nebraska, Ranked Arkansas, and a ranked Notre Dame. Florida, played a ranked Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU and a ranked South Carolina. So what's the beef?
If you are looking at that 3 points at Ohio state, Michigan scored Garbage in a blow out, perhaps you watched the game? Was there any ever doubt? Michigan made it close, but that only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
Its not just the Michigan thing either. Wisconsin didn't even get into a bowl game yet they were 7th. Another team didn't get a bowl game and they were in the top 10 too.
See what I don't get is that last year or the year before it wasn't a number 1 vs number 2 championship but yet this year it had to be? I don't see #3 playing #4 and so on.
They have to work out some sort of playoff thing because the BCS is just awful.
See what I don't get is that last year or the year before it wasn't a number 1 vs number 2 championship but yet this year it had to be? I don't see #3 playing #4 and so on.
They have to work out some sort of playoff thing because the BCS is just awful.
You do realize that 2/3rd of the BCS rankings is based on the polls.. ie: Human rankings.
edit:
Again, I ask, how would you make it better? a couple years ago, the BCS rankings was mostly computed based on computer generated rankings based on strength of sched, "big wins", and other such nonsense.
They changed it it (2004 i think) to be based on 2/3 human rankings polls and 1/3 of the score based on a computed average of computer rankings.
if you want to blame anybody for the florida-ohio st matchup, blame the voters!
edit:
Again, I ask, how would you make it better? a couple years ago, the BCS rankings was mostly computed based on computer generated rankings based on strength of sched, "big wins", and other such nonsense.
They changed it it (2004 i think) to be based on 2/3 human rankings polls and 1/3 of the score based on a computed average of computer rankings.
if you want to blame anybody for the florida-ohio st matchup, blame the voters!
Last edited:
Yes
And its all crap. I mean you don't knowif they are really going for there fav team and plus having a computer pick towards it isn't the best way to do things either.
Like it was mentioned before...why does college football have to be the only sport without a playoff. Even Nascar sorta went that way. With like what 10 races left you have to be in the top 10 to have a chase for the cup. Anybody outside the top 10 cant win the championship but can still race for wins and money and what not. So if nascar can figure something out like that even tho they didn't need to then why can't college do it? A few extra games big deal.
Edit: I am sure there is a way to do a playoff. It would also help make things better if all teams played the same amount of games. Thats not far for a team to not play for two weeks and lose there spot because there are other teams playing still. What if ohio state lost there spot because they haven't played for two weeks? Don't you think people would flip out?
And its all crap. I mean you don't knowif they are really going for there fav team and plus having a computer pick towards it isn't the best way to do things either.
Like it was mentioned before...why does college football have to be the only sport without a playoff. Even Nascar sorta went that way. With like what 10 races left you have to be in the top 10 to have a chase for the cup. Anybody outside the top 10 cant win the championship but can still race for wins and money and what not. So if nascar can figure something out like that even tho they didn't need to then why can't college do it? A few extra games big deal.
Edit: I am sure there is a way to do a playoff. It would also help make things better if all teams played the same amount of games. Thats not far for a team to not play for two weeks and lose there spot because there are other teams playing still. What if ohio state lost there spot because they haven't played for two weeks? Don't you think people would flip out?
A few extra games is a big deal. You also have to remember that no matter how marginalized it is, these are still "students" (at least in name) and still need time for classes and school related work.
I agree with you in that it is unfair that some teams play more games than others. But most teams play 12 games and only a handful of conferences play a 13th or 14th game.
As I said before, the BCS DOES suck. But a playoff system may not be the answer either.. Besides that, there is the MONEY involved in the bowl system that schools will not give up.
Beyond that, the BCS/Bowl system does provide a little more excitment through the season. Because there are so few games, a single loss becomes a big deal. One loss can "ruin" your season and your chance for a "championship" title. No other sport can really claim that. This makes each week more "exciting" to watch. How many people enjoy watching the NFL during week 16 or 17 when a playoff team that has locked up home field advantage throughout the playoffs ends up resting all their starters and playing their 2nd and 3rd string players?
I agree with you in that it is unfair that some teams play more games than others. But most teams play 12 games and only a handful of conferences play a 13th or 14th game.
As I said before, the BCS DOES suck. But a playoff system may not be the answer either.. Besides that, there is the MONEY involved in the bowl system that schools will not give up.
Beyond that, the BCS/Bowl system does provide a little more excitment through the season. Because there are so few games, a single loss becomes a big deal. One loss can "ruin" your season and your chance for a "championship" title. No other sport can really claim that. This makes each week more "exciting" to watch. How many people enjoy watching the NFL during week 16 or 17 when a playoff team that has locked up home field advantage throughout the playoffs ends up resting all their starters and playing their 2nd and 3rd string players?
One loss might ruin a season, but what about the times when a team has 0 losses and they still don't get into the big game? Remember this happened a few years ago (LSU?) and they had a legitimate case for being in the championship game. What about Oklahoma this year? They had just one loss, to a highly ranked Texas at the time, and they managed to do as well as they did without their starting quarterback or star runningback.
Again, all the other sports have playoffs -- even in college.
Concerning the OSU vs. Michigan game, what's the deal with the garbage points? I can understand garbage points when one team quits playing or puts in its 2nd string. This didn't happen and I'm pretty sure OSU didn't just quit playing the game. It wouldn't have taken much for that game to have a different outcome -- that made it close.
The BCS is still broken. Even though the majority is human voters now, how does that make it better? Many voters don't even know the outcome of games when they are voting for that week's poll -- it's true and it's ridiculous. I don't know of another way besides a playoff, so do what every other sport does and have one. So the season is extended by one month... big deal... if you want to focus on your education then study overtime or don't play the game.
Again, all the other sports have playoffs -- even in college.
Concerning the OSU vs. Michigan game, what's the deal with the garbage points? I can understand garbage points when one team quits playing or puts in its 2nd string. This didn't happen and I'm pretty sure OSU didn't just quit playing the game. It wouldn't have taken much for that game to have a different outcome -- that made it close.
The BCS is still broken. Even though the majority is human voters now, how does that make it better? Many voters don't even know the outcome of games when they are voting for that week's poll -- it's true and it's ridiculous. I don't know of another way besides a playoff, so do what every other sport does and have one. So the season is extended by one month... big deal... if you want to focus on your education then study overtime or don't play the game.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,406
The team you were thinking of was Auburn, and at the end of the regular season there were three undefeated teams. USC, Oklahoma amd Auburn . Auburn bithced and whined about not being in the championship game, The reason they were not involoved and the other two teams were is that they had a couple of games against division 1-aa teams, whereas USC and Olahoma beat !-a teams.
Oh by the way Oklahoma has two losses one to Texas and one to Oregon, Stoops did his best coaching job this year.
As to the polls, that is because teams that are on the East coast finsh their games earlier than teams on the West Coast, this has always been a problem, if USC plays a 7:00 game at the Collisseum it has a starting time of 10:00 for someone back East. Very few voters actually see the outcome of west coast games and turn in their ballots on guesstimates.
This is aflaw with Newspaper polls, they do have a print time and late night West Coast games are not on their deadline.
The same thing is happening now, Michigan has two teams that were not in their class. Central Michgan and Ball State, and the Big 10 outside of OSU and Michigan is not very good. Including an 11-1 Wisconsin. check their strength of schedule it comes in at something like 83 out of 106 division one teams.
Oh by the way Oklahoma has two losses one to Texas and one to Oregon, Stoops did his best coaching job this year.
As to the polls, that is because teams that are on the East coast finsh their games earlier than teams on the West Coast, this has always been a problem, if USC plays a 7:00 game at the Collisseum it has a starting time of 10:00 for someone back East. Very few voters actually see the outcome of west coast games and turn in their ballots on guesstimates.
This is aflaw with Newspaper polls, they do have a print time and late night West Coast games are not on their deadline.
The same thing is happening now, Michigan has two teams that were not in their class. Central Michgan and Ball State, and the Big 10 outside of OSU and Michigan is not very good. Including an 11-1 Wisconsin. check their strength of schedule it comes in at something like 83 out of 106 division one teams.
It doesn't really come down to the Michigan thing like I said.
I do think something should be done about the strength of Michigan's schedule because that is hurting us. Nobody cares about Michigan playing a crappy team. I mostly watched the games that would actually be worth watching and that was like 3-4 games tops.
I do think something should be done about the strength of Michigan's schedule because that is hurting us. Nobody cares about Michigan playing a crappy team. I mostly watched the games that would actually be worth watching and that was like 3-4 games tops.
Hmm... something also happened in 2003 when LSU won the title under Nick Saban. I don't recall the exact situation, but it was controversial as usual.
I remember the Oklahoma vs. Oregon fiasco. Oklahoma technically lost, but everybody knows they should have won. Of course the computers count 2 losses, and I'm sure the voters didn't treat them as a one-loss team, either.
I remember the Oklahoma vs. Oregon fiasco. Oklahoma technically lost, but everybody knows they should have won. Of course the computers count 2 losses, and I'm sure the voters didn't treat them as a one-loss team, either.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,406
Yeah in 2003 USC was ranked number one in both the ap and coaches poll and number three in the BCS, as a result Oklahoma and LSU played each other a #2 vs a #3 for the national title. USC played #4 Michigan and beat them handily. The AP writers who had USC number 1 awarded them the National title. The coaches poll and the BCS handed the title to LSU, thus guaranteeing a split national title. The coaches signed a contract at the beginning of the BCS to award their title to whomever plays in the BCS bowl. Many of the coaches however voted USC a number #1 spot in addtion to giving the BCS trphy to LSU.
- Status
Members online
No members online now.
Latest profile posts
Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS
Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
