Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 5, 2011 14:02:16 GMT -5
My only problem with the rematch has nothing to do with conferences. It's the same problem as when they were contemplating a Michigan Ohio State rematch.
My problem is, should Alabama win -- and they certainly might, though I wouldn't put money on that -- I don't know how you give them the title outright over a team that has beaten them.
Sure, you do it by saying "this is the game that counts," and both teams know that going in and have a month to prepare for it.
But we are continually told by the ever-dwindling supporters of the BCS that "college football DOES have a playoff: it's called the regular season." [cough-johnsaunders-cough]
How does this support that theory?
I think it should be a great game and I look forward to watching it. And, if LSU wins, which I think they will, then hooray!! The system "worked."
Half (or more) of me hopes LSU loses though, just because it will increase the clamor for at the very least a +1 playoff, if not something more extensive.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Dec 5, 2011 14:23:17 GMT -5
I recognize and agree with most of the points RDF has made about Boise St. over the course of the season. But being relegated to the pre-Christmas MAACO Bowl in Las Vegas seems more than a bit harsh. I'm fairly certain they deserved better than that. And are a better team than that. There's an easy way for them to fix that problem. If only they had a BCS conference affiliation, they'd be guaranteed no worse than a NYE bowl, pretty much in perpetuity.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Dec 5, 2011 14:52:30 GMT -5
I'm for a playoff, but if that's not possible, I'm absolutely for a +1 system. Preserve the bowls and give two more teams a shot at the title. LSU-Stanford, Alabama-Oklahoma State? Yes, please!
But for this season, I will say that I am 100x more excited for the potential fireworks in the Stanford-Oklahoma State Fiesta Bowl, than I am for another potential snoozefest in the BCS National Championship Game.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Dec 5, 2011 15:20:36 GMT -5
Rooter, so the Big 10 was overrated---and this is surprising in what way? The BCS has saved fans from overrated champs--as you mentioned in '06.
Being "fair" isn't what the BCS was designed for--it was designed for the 2 best teams to play. It's worked out as it should unlike several past years. Was it fair to Nebraska to have to play Oklahoma in '71 twice? Was it fair for FSU? Was it fair to have USC ranked #1 in both polls have to sit at home and watch an Oklahoma team that was beaten 35-3 by KSU in Big XII game play LSU in '03? At least this is a case where the 2 best teams will play.
I completely agree with the discussion about rest of bowl selections but that isn't BCS job--they are done with who goes where after 1 vs 2--it's up to the bowl committees. Michigan State wins their division, beats Michigan but doesn't get to a BCS game and Michigan does? Va Tech schedules nobody, gets their brains bashed in against Clemson--2 times, and gets in?
Boise State can eat crap--TCU got screwed. They won Boise's league--beat them on their smurf turf, and didn't get in.
Oregon beats Stanford by 23 pts at Stanford, wins the Pac 12 North, wins the Pac 12 and is behind Stanford because they actually played #1 team in country to open season, so that gave them 2nd loss-with both being to top 5 teams (USC is #5 in AP Poll) which proves they weren't NC worthy but they beat doors off Stanford--who was close to getting in it.
It's not perfect by any means--but my biggest complaint has been the other BCS games--not 1 vs 2 because at least they have provided a chance to see a championship game--and it is getting better as last 3 years-we've had best 2 teams playing which wasn't case in 02-08 minus SC vs Texas which was deserving teams. This whole "we get to pick who we want to replace a team..." and "league tie-ins" sucks. Needs to be changed.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 5, 2011 15:23:59 GMT -5
Was it fair to Nebraska to have to play Oklahoma in '71 twice?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 5, 2011 15:47:40 GMT -5
Was it fair to Nebraska to have to play Oklahoma in '71 twice? It's more or less a moot point because the 'Huskers had already won the national championship, or at least a share of it. The final UPI coaches' poll for that season was released on December 7, 1971.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 5, 2011 16:06:35 GMT -5
When the league has dominated the BCS games and won the last 5 National Championships, it isn't hype. Until some team actually steps up and beats them, they get every right to crow and puff chest out and monopolize the sport. The problem is that prophecies of SEC dominance have become self-fulfilling. The Big Ten was considered the best conference in the land until Florida crushed Ohio State in the championship game. As 'rooter pointed out, there's no chance for a similar paradigm shift in 2011. College football is boring when it's based on media hype and not results on the field. Who did Alabama beat? Other than Arkansas and Penn State, the Tide's schedule is weak. 'Bama did not play UGA or S. Carolina. Alabama is in the title game due to a favorable schedule and media/voter bias based on groupthink. But if the Tide defeats LSU, I guess they will have "proven it on the field." Oklahoma State should have had a chance to end the tiresome dominant SEC refrain. The unbiased computers thought so, too.
|
|
adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Post by adlai on Dec 5, 2011 16:13:25 GMT -5
Rooter, so the Big 10 was overrated---and this is surprising in what way? The BCS has saved fans from overrated champs--as you mentioned in '06. Being "fair" isn't what the BCS was designed for--it was designed for the 2 best teams to play. It's worked out as it should unlike several past years. Was it fair to Nebraska to have to play Oklahoma in '71 twice? Was it fair for FSU? Was it fair to have USC ranked #1 in both polls have to sit at home and watch an Oklahoma team that was beaten 35-3 by KSU in Big XII game play LSU in '03? At least this is a case where the 2 best teams will play. I completely agree with the discussion about rest of bowl selections but that isn't BCS job--they are done with who goes where after 1 vs 2--it's up to the bowl committees. Michigan State wins their division, beats Michigan but doesn't get to a BCS game and Michigan does? Va Tech schedules nobody, gets their brains bashed in against Clemson--2 times, and gets in? Boise State can eat crap--TCU got screwed. They won Boise's league--beat them on their smurf turf, and didn't get in. Oregon beats Stanford by 23 pts at Stanford, wins the Pac 12 North, wins the Pac 12 and is behind Stanford because they actually played #1 team in country to open season, so that gave them 2nd loss-with both being to top 5 teams (USC is #5 in AP Poll) which proves they weren't NC worthy but they beat doors off Stanford--who was close to getting in it. It's not perfect by any means--but my biggest complaint has been the other BCS games--not 1 vs 2 because at least they have provided a chance to see a championship game--and it is getting better as last 3 years-we've had best 2 teams playing which wasn't case in 02-08 minus SC vs Texas which was deserving teams. This whole "we get to pick who we want to replace a team..." and "league tie-ins" sucks. Needs to be changed. The SEC has clearly been the dominant conference and my hunch is that LSU is the best team followed by Alabama. However, my eyes also told me that Michigan was better than Florida in 2006. Florida won a bunch of close games that year while Michigan dominated all opponents save for a three point loss to the #1 team in the country at the time on the road. As Lundquist and Danielson kept repeating at the time, it would be unfair not to give Florida a chance that year even though the eye test favored Michigan (remember Urban Meyer telling the world how style points didn't matter, just wins given how the Gators tended to win?). As national title game proved that year, Florida was the better team. Fast forward to this year and you have a similar situation. I think Alabama is a better team than Oklahoma State, but we really can't say that with confidence. Alabama lost to LSU at home, so why replay this game if operating under the same logic as in 2006? If they couldn't beat them at home, why put it on a neutral field? At least Michigan could claim that the result might be different on a neutral field. Why not give another team the shot to knock of the seeming best team in the country? The ultimate problem with the championship game is the sliding scale that ultimately tilts in favor of the SEC regardless of logic from previous years. If we want to see what would likely be the most competitive game, then we have it in the current title game. However, Florida would not be the champ in 2006 if the same logic had been applied then. If on the other hand we want to determine a national champion then it is more important to allow another legitimate contender the chance to play LSU and in this case that would most likely be Oklahoma State. While I agree that the other bowl games suffer from their own logic, that pales in comparison to the importance of the lack of consistency how the title game is decided given the stakes. Everyone knows the simplest solution to this problem is a playoff, but in the meantime it would useful to establish the purpose of the title game and not update it from year-to-year.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 5, 2011 16:23:44 GMT -5
it would useful to establish the purpose of the title game and not update it from year-to-year. On a similar note, I wonder if the "rules" will be tinkered with again after this season, as they often are when there is disappointment with the title game selection (think eliminating margin-of-victory after Nebraska weaseled its way into the championship game). Also, if 'Bama beats LSU by a field goal and Oklahoma State beats Stanford by 30, would the 'Pokes have a shot at the AP national title?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 5, 2011 16:46:22 GMT -5
After what LSU just did to a very good Georgia team, anyone who can beat them is National Champ, case closed. Does anyone believe Alabama would not wipe the floor with OSU? Really?
|
|
adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Post by adlai on Dec 5, 2011 17:12:02 GMT -5
After what LSU just did to a very good Georgia team, anyone who can beat them is National Champ, case closed. Does anyone believe Alabama would not wipe the floor with OSU? Really? Personally I think Alabama would win, but I seem to recall hearing a rumor that major upsets have occurred from time to time in the history of sporting competition. Even so, #3 beating #2 would not come close to qualifying as a major upset.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,137
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 5, 2011 20:11:29 GMT -5
After what LSU just did to a very good Georgia team, anyone who can beat them is National Champ, case closed. Does anyone believe Alabama would not wipe the floor with OSU? Really? Most people thought that Ohio State would wipe the floor with Florida in 2006. Wasn't OSU at least a seven point favorite? It wouldn't surprise me if LSU would beat Oklahoma State by three touchdowns. But that's pretty much what I also expected Ohio State to do to Florida. I already know that LSU beat Bama on the road (albeit thanks to Bama's crummy kicker, but a win is a win). I would rather have given OSU a chance to prove me wrong. Bring on the playoff format, even if it's just a +1.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 6, 2011 6:03:23 GMT -5
I agree completely with the need for a playoff but the public outcry for OSU is simply founded on people's distaste for the "rematch". I guarantee Bama would be at least a touchdown favorite over the Cowboys if not more.
If the idea is that the two best teams, regardless of conference affiliation or public whim play, then the BCS got it dead right this year. If you want th "more interesting or appealing" matchup then you have a gripe.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 6, 2011 6:32:03 GMT -5
Geaux Tigers! Get 'em, Honey Badger.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Dec 6, 2011 7:56:43 GMT -5
I agree completely with the need for a playoff but the public outcry for OSU is simply founded on people's distaste for the "rematch". I guarantee Bama would be at least a touchdown favorite over the Cowboys if not more. If the idea is that the two best teams, regardless of conference affiliation or public whim play, then the BCS got it dead right this year. If you want th "more interesting or appealing" matchup then you have a gripe. Is that the BCS's goal? Simply to determine that the two best teams play each other? I hate to be that nuance guy, but that objective seems to be slightly different than the goal of crowning a true national champion. If the two are in conflict, it would be preferable to see them set up the championship game that gives us the best shot at an unequivocal national champ. Personally, I think this year's BCS bowl selections were committed intentionally in the hopes of sabotaging the current system once and for all. BUM's column on the subject is actually not too ridiculous: www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/bcs-gives-us-a-nightmare-schedule-instead-of-a-dream-tournament/2011/12/04/gIQAPHrVUO_story.html
|
|
adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Post by adlai on Dec 6, 2011 8:01:47 GMT -5
I guarantee Bama would be at least a touchdown favorite over the Cowboys if not more. This statement is simply ridiculous. Nothing is guaranteed in sports, particularly when you are comparing two top teams.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 6, 2011 8:48:19 GMT -5
Ask a bookie and tell me its ridiculous. That's what my bookie told me.
|
|
adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Post by adlai on Dec 6, 2011 8:58:46 GMT -5
Ask a bookie and tell me its ridiculous. That's what my bookie told me. Should I infer from this statement that you believe that a "spread" is equivalent to a "guarantee"? Your "guarantee" remains ridiculous.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 6, 2011 9:51:59 GMT -5
Read my post again. My guarantee was the line would be at least a touchdown. My own belief is the beating would be worse than that.
|
|
adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Post by adlai on Dec 6, 2011 10:13:16 GMT -5
Read my post again. My guarantee was the line would be at least a touchdown. My own belief is the beating would be worse than that. Fair enough. I still don't think that believing this will be the best game should outweigh the possibility that we're wrong on Okie State or another one loss team. If the search is for a national champion, give everyone their shot and don't focus on the predicted "quality" of the game. If it's for the best predicted game, then call it the "most-awesomest expected matchup based on the spread" game rather than the "title" game. Hoyarooter is dead on. Michigan or OSU would have been the national champs in 2006 if the same rule had been applied that year which in retrospect would have ben an injustice to Florida. I for one am not worried about a rematch as much as much as I am that we have excluded another team (which mind you the computers tell us played a tougher overall schedule) based on the expected spread when Alabama already had their chance against LSU at home.
|
|