Crappy BCS analysis / prediction thread

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Florida/Arkansas didn't mean more than OSU/Michigan. It meant more than Michigan vs. naptime. Before this weekend they were already pretty close. Florida did something to make up that ground while Michigan just sat there.

Just curious, what exactly do you want Michigan to do?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

One solution: Florida vs. Michigan. Winner goes to the title game. As much of a supporter of the bowl system (more of the old bowl/conference system though), I think something needs to be done.

It'd be definitely be cool if college football were run like the WWE. Then Vince McMahon could suddenly appear on the Titantron and make matchups like this on the fly.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Just curious, what exactly do you want Michigan to do?

Beat Ohio State the first time around?

[Galaxy]

To add to this discussion, what if USC did win the other day, would it still be the same thing as a Michigan/Florida debate?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

To add to this discussion, what if USC did win the other day, would it still be the same thing as a Michigan/Florida debate?

No, because USC had 4 BCS wins and a much tougher SOS than Michigan or Florida. Even with the win against Arkansas, Florida had 3 and Michigan had 2.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Just curious, what exactly do you want Michigan to do?

Play in the rose bowl.

[st.cronin]

I don't particularly like the SEC, and I'm a Big 10 fan, but this is probably the right matchup. The only other two teams that really have any claim to play Ohio State are Boise State and Louisville. And really, only Boise State has any right to bitch. Everybody else, just go undefeated next time.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Beat Ohio State the first time around?

What if they did win, would you argue that Ohio State or Florida have a equal chance?

My problem with Florida is they just weren't impressive. They just got by a couple of average-to-poor teams. This is where I have a problem with the human polls. Are they voting for Florida over Michigan, or against Michigan getting a re-match against Ohio State?

[Arles]

BTW, to tease everyone, here's what an 8-team playoff would look like by the BCS:

#1 OSU vs. #8 Boise State
#2 UF vs. #7 Wisconsin
#3 Michigan vs. #6 Louisville
#4 LSU vs. #5 USC

[JPhillips]

On another note, did anyone else watch the selection show and think, "This is the national championship broadcasting team?" Davis in particular was awful. He looked like he was doing a class assignment instead of national television.

I'm pretty sure I'm really going to miss the ABC team.

[Brian Swartz]

given it essentially a toss up by numbers, it seems those that want Michigan would like the following:

1. The Michigan-OSU game to be meaningless.
2. The Florida-Arkansas SEC title game to be meaningless.

By voting Michigan at No. 2, you would be essentially making arguably the top 2 regular season games mean nothing. Given how close Michigan and Florida were before the game, I can't see a scenerio where Florida should not get a title chance if they clearly beat the No. 8 team in the country. After all, had Florida lost, they certainly would not have had a shot at the championship.

Um, no. If those games are both meaningless then Michigan was undefeated the rest of the way, whereas Florida lost to Auburn. In that scenario there isn't even an argument. And they didn't 'clearly beat' Arkansas -- they trailed in the third quarter before finishing well. Grats to them for doing so, but it isn't like they dominated the game.

Furthermore, I don't view the numbers as a 'toss-up', if you look at the body of work over the whole season(not just the three games from each team). Florida pretty much never looked impressive after the first month, did far poorer against the one common opponent, and had more than it's share of close shaves. The consistent level of play comparison for each team is tilted heavily towards Michigan.

[quote]

1. Not necessarily. It depends on the wins, how they played in those games, etc. You can't win games not on the schedule.

2. A little bit of a bump I understand. Florida didn't get a little bump. They got a massive shift, from a game they didn't look that great in, while not being punished for looking downright mediocre against FSU the week before. I would also understand it if Florida beat Arkansas 31-7 or something, I think they'd have a very fair argument. But they didn't.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Arles

BTW, to tease everyone, here's what an 8-team playoff would look like by the BCS:

#1 OSU vs. #8 Boise State
#2 UF vs. #7 Wisconsin
#3 Michigan vs. #6 Louisville
#4 LSU vs. #5 USC

Would be exciting. Only one problem, Notre Dame is missing. They would magically be put in someway.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

On another note, did anyone else watch the selection show and think, "This is the national championship broadcasting team?" Davis in particular was awful. He looked like he was doing a class assignment instead of national television.

I'm pretty sure I'm really going to miss the ABC team.

Have either of these two ever broadcasted before?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What if they did win, would you argue that Ohio State or Florida have a equal chance?

Florida would have gotten the nod then...Michigan's one loss resume is better than Ohio State's would have been, IMO.

My problem with Florida is they just weren't impressive. They just got by a couple of average-to-poor teams.

Meh...the only games UF had that were decided by a touchdown or less were at Tennessee (ask Cal how hard it is to win there), the UGA game (big rivalry), at Vandy (UF had a 19 point fourth quarter lead), USC (Spurrier) and at FSU (rivalry). Aside from Vanderbilt, I wouldn't have thought any of those games would have been a blowout, regardless of how good the teams are.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

On another note, did anyone else watch the selection show and think, "This is the national championship broadcasting team?" Davis in particular was awful. He looked like he was doing a class assignment instead of national television.

I'm pretty sure I'm really going to miss the ABC team.

Since you brought it up,

Sugar Bowl-Terry Bradshaw and Howie Long join Kenny Albert. Reporting from the sidelines is Jeanne Zelasko

Orange Bowl-Pat Haden, Terry Donahue and Play-by-Play Announcer Matt Vasgersian. Handling sideline reporting is FSN's pro and college football reporter Laura Okmin

Fiesta Bowl-play-by-play announcer Thom Brennaman and lead analysts Barry Alvarez and Charles Davis with Chris Myers on the sidelines

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Would be exciting. Only one problem, Notre Dame is missing. They would magically be put in someway.

And the Big 12. And the ACC.

[JPhillips]

Does anyone know why Fox isn't using any of its regular NFL folks? They have a number of experienced NFL play by play and analysts. Is there a reason why they are using inexperienced teams with no experience together?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile, watching the ESPN bowl show right now, I'm wondering if Lee Corso is about half drunk.

He's funny ... but he don't look good & sounds kinda tipsy (even for Corso).

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by Logan

Which ND wins impressed you?

Their final rankings are still as a result of their lofty preseason #2 ranking, which is why many of us want those polls to not be unveiled until later in the season.

None of their wins were overly impressive ... beating Georgia Tech on the road in their first game was probably the best one, and the next game against PSU would be #2. Still, what other team should be in there? The only other eligible team under the rules (top-14 and 9+ wins) was West Virginia. Their most impressive win was at home in triple overtime over Rutgers, but they also lost at home to South Florida and lost to BC. Even if we go outside the top 14, you can shoot holes in the other teams' resumes (VT lost at home to the same G Tech team ND beat on the road; Rutgers got killed by Cincinnati). What team got screwed by a lower preseason ranking? The computer rankings had Notre Dame higher than any other team not in the BCS ... a few of them start with preseason biases, but as the season wears on, those preseason rankings reduce to having a negligible effect.

OK, I'm going to stop defendng a team I hate. I just want to know who ELSE should have gotten in.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

None of their wins were overly impressive ... beating Georgia Tech on the road in their first game was probably the best one, and the next game against PSU would be #2. Still, what other team should be in there? The only other eligible team under the rules (top-14 and 9+ wins) was West Virginia. Their most impressive win was at home in triple overtime over Rutgers, but they also lost at home to South Florida and lost to BC. Even if we go outside the top 14, you can shoot holes in the other teams' resumes (VT lost at home to the same G Tech team ND beat on the road; Rutgers got killed by Cincinnati). What team got screwed by a lower preseason ranking? The computer rankings had Notre Dame higher than any other team not in the BCS ... a few of them start with preseason biases, but as the season wears on, those preseason rankings reduce to having a negligible effect.

OK, I'm going to stop defendng a team I hate. I just want to know who ELSE should have gotten in.

Hawaii?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Does anyone know why Fox isn't using any of its regular NFL folks? They have a number of experienced NFL play by play and analysts. Is there a reason why they are using inexperienced teams with no experience together?

I would much rather them use guys who have some experience with the college game. I remember when ABC used the Monday night crew (I think it was Michaels, Gifford and Dierdorf) for a bowl game and it was brutal. I expect the same from Bradshaw and Long, especially since this is Long's first time as a game analyst.

[cartman]

Like I mentioned in another thread, it seems that Michigan is getting punished for having their bye weeks at the end of the season. If they had played one of their games from earlier in the season yesterday, I wonder if the shift of votes to Florida would have been as pronounced.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Like I mentioned in another thread, it seems that Michigan is getting punished for having their bye weeks at the end of the season. If they had played one of their games from earlier in the season yesterday, I wonder if the shift of votes to Florida would have been as pronounced.

I disagree. I think Michigan gets punished for losing their conference. Remember these are coaches we are dealing with. I think most coaches have the belief that you have to win your conference to be eligible for a national title.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I disagree. I think Michigan gets punished for losing their conference. Remember these are coaches we are dealing with. I think most coaches have the belief that you have to win your conference to be eligible for a national title.

If that was the case, then why were they still ranked #2 in the coaches poll after they lost to OSU? By your statement, they should have been ranked lower than both USC and Florida after that game, since those schools still had a chance to win their conference while Michigan didn't.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by molson

It'd be definitely be cool if college football were run like the WWE. Then Vince McMahon could suddenly appear on the Titantron and make matchups like this on the fly.

Awesome.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by cartman

If that was the case, then why were they still ranked #2 in the coaches poll after they lost to OSU?

Because, at the time, the polls didn't matter for squat. The only time the polls actually mean anything is for the final BCS calculations...today was the day for the pollsters to correct any mistakes.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

If that was the case, then why were they still ranked #2 in the coaches poll after they lost to OSU? By your statement, they should have been ranked lower than both USC and Florida after that game, since those schools still had a chance to win their conference while Michigan didn't.

Good question. Another good question would be what was so impressive about Florida that moved them up? That is where conference championship comes into play. My basis is the historical uproar each time we had a non conference winner playing in the championship game.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Um, no. If those games are both meaningless then Michigan was undefeated the rest of the way, whereas Florida lost to Auburn. In that scenario there isn't even an argument.

You are missing the point. Here it is restated:

IF (and this is the big IF) you vote Michigan number 2, you are stating that Michigan's loss to Ohio State meant nothing AND Florida's win over Arkansas meant nothing when it comes to the championship.

And they didn't 'clearly beat' Arkansas -- they trailed in the third quarter before finishing well.

They beat a top 10 team by 10 points. From the 12 minute mark of the 4th quarter on, the game was never within one possession. That's clearly beating a top team.

Grats to them for doing so, but it isn't like they dominated the game.

I didn't say they dominated, I said they clearly won (ie, no bad call or fluke event at the end - like, say, the fumbled snaps by Ohio State against Michigan).

Furthermore, I don't view the numbers as a 'toss-up', if you look at the body of work over the whole season(not just the three games from each team). Florida pretty much never looked impressive after the first month, did far poorer against the one common opponent, and had more than it's share of close shaves. The consistent level of play comparison for each team is tilted heavily towards Michigan.

Michigan's a good team and so is Florida. You can debate who did better against average to below average teams (and I think Michigan probably get's the nod here). My point is that the best non-subjective manner to judge these teams is how they did against BCS opponents. And, Florida has one more win than Michigan when that is measure.

[cartman]

I'm just not so sure if the Michigan-Wisconsin game was played yesterday instead of back in September, that Michigan wouldn't be in the title game, even though Florida won their conference title. It not only who you play, but when you play them that factors in.

I guess the BCS powers that be are firmly in the camp that believe there is no such thing as bad press. I hear the argument often that people are talking so much about it that means it is good for college football. The only problem is 99% of the talk is what a crock the system had become.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Joe

And the Big 12. And the ACC.

I just went by the top 8 in the BCS. Had I done it in a "fair" way, I would put the champs of ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big east, Pac 10 and SEC in. Then, I would take the top 2 atlarge bids with an exception if a non-BCS team is in the top 10. So, in this case, it would be:

1. Ohio State vs. 8. Boise State (at large 2)
2. Florida vs. 7. Michigan (at large 1)
3. USC vs. 6. Wake Forest
4. Louisville vs. 5. Oklahoma

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

If that was the case, then why were they still ranked #2 in the coaches poll after they lost to OSU? By your statement, they should have been ranked lower than both USC and Florida after that game, since those schools still had a chance to win their conference while Michigan didn't.

Because neither of those two had won their conference yet. But, once Florida a) won their conference and b) had just one loss, I think that was enough for many coaches to put them ahead.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Just ask youself how the media could justify voting Florida ahead of Michigan after Michigian didn't even play.

... seriously? Teams get passed all the time in the middle of the regular season when they don't play.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, given it was essentially a toss up by numbers, it seems those that want Michigan would like the following:

1. The Michigan-OSU game to be meaningless.
2. The Florida-Arkansas SEC title game to be meaningless.

By voting Michigan at No. 2, you would be essentially making arguably the top 2 regular season games mean nothing. Given how close Michigan and Florida were before the game, I can't see a scenerio where Florida should not get a title chance if they clearly beat the No. 8 team in the country. After all, had Florida lost, they certainly would not have had a shot at the championship.

I'm so sick of the "meaningless" argument. No, those games aren't meaningless. They determined their respective conference championships. That was the conclusion of the regular season. In 99% of sports leagues, you then move on to the next season - the post-season.

I don't give a rat's ass about going undefeated or how every game is a playoff because if you lose, you're pretty much out of the picture. That's a flaw with college football, a minus, not a plus. I want a real season, one that is divided into regular and post-seasons. You win your conference championship, whether there's a title game or not, and it only means so much until you prove your worth in the post-season.

Florida and Michigan both deserve to be there, IMO. The only reason I think Michigan deserves it more is because I don't think there is any justification for dropping them a spot when they didn't play. And actually, they were dropped TWICE without playing - once when USC beat ND, and now when UF won. That's a load of shit, and I hope Bud Selig calls the BCS Bowl game in the 3rd OT at 24-24 and blames it on the fact that Paul Maguire's telestrator stopped working from his remote location in the Wrigley Field bleachers. Or something along those lines.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Look at the non-conference games for both teams.

Michigan: Vanderbilt, Central Michigan and Notre Dame.
Two cupcakes and a BCS team.

Florida: Southern Miss, Central Florida and Western Carolina.
Three cupcakes, one of them in November.

Conference schedules are beyond the control of any team, but Florida doesn't have a worthwhile non-conference game and even played a directional school in November.

If that's your argument, then why not:

Sacramento State, Utah, Wyoming, Oregon State.

Boise State has a better non-conf schedule than Florida, then put them in the game.

Note: this is a sarcastic argument. I care about strength of schedule, but out of / in conference only matters to a certain point.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Florida and Michigan both deserve to be there, IMO. The only reason I think Michigan deserves it more is because I don't think there is any justification for dropping them a spot when they didn't play. And actually, they were dropped TWICE without playing - once when USC beat ND, and now when UF won. That's a load of shit

Tell that to West Virginia and Louisville. In week 7, WVU (5-0) was #4 in the coaches poll and Michigan (6-0) was #5. After both teams won, Michigan ended up at #3 and WVU #4. Michigan also leaped over Louisville when both were undefeated.

Coaches vote all the time to move teams ahead of others even in situations where both teams win.

But, to your second point, I'd vote for any kind of Armaggedon possible to get a playoff. My hope is an OT Florida win over Ohio State on a blown call and a 20-point Michigan drubbing of USC. That might throw a wrench in this system.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The only reason I think Michigan deserves it more is because I don't think there is any justification for dropping them a spot when they didn't play.

This is the argument I'm sick of. How does this make any sense? Seriously? UF had an off week on 10/21 while Michigan played and beat (now-unranked) Iowa. Here, let's move that game to this week. Know what? Same records. Want a better team? Okay, move the Notre Dame win to this week, that does look impressive. But, oh, wait, Michigan jumped from #11/#13 to #6/#6 with that win. Maybe they wouldn't BE in front of Florida if they hadn't already played their games.

Even better. Directional North and South are both ranked #4 (tie). Directional North plays and beats #20, #21 and #22 while Directional South is idle. Directional North is now ranked #4, Directional South #5. Meanwhile, DN now takes three weeks off and Directional South beats #1, #2, and #3. Ooooops, can't drop North while they don't play. Now North is #1 and South is #2. That makes a ton of sense.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Arles

My hope is an OT Florida win over Ohio State on a blown call and a 20-point Michigan drubbing of USC. That might throw a wrench in this system.

Florida over Ohio State (OT, bad call)
Michigan over USC (3 turnovers apiece in the rain, ugly game)
Boise State by 12 over Oklahoma.

[dime]

the answer seems to be for more superconferences and adding more stupid conference title games. another reason to loathe the SEC. maybe after florida gets embarassed, we won't have 5 SEC teams in the preseason top 10 again next year. it's obvious now that even after they get exposed as middling teams, the "notoriety" of the conference is helped as they all take turns beating each other and exchanging ranking spots.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by dime

the answer seems to be for more superconferences and adding more stupid conference title games. another reason to loathe the SEC. maybe after florida gets embarassed, we won't have 5 SEC teams in the preseason top 10 again next year. it's obvious now that even after they get exposed as middling teams, the "notoriety" of the conference is helped as they all take turns beating each other and exchanging ranking spots.

No, the solution is to do like the PAC 10 and have every team play each other. That way, wisconsin would have played Ohio state and would deserve a high ranking or be exposed

[dime]

badgers are 4-2 vs tressel, so I think it would have been a really good game. the superconferences don't play each team, but I guess it doesn't matter because they arbitrary divisions that leave LSU out of the "title game" so that a phony team like arkansas decides who gets to win the conference.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Arles

I just went by the top 8 in the BCS. Had I done it in a "fair" way, I would put the champs of ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big east, Pac 10 and SEC in. Then, I would take the top 2 atlarge bids with an exception if a non-BCS team is in the top 10. So, in this case, it would be:

1. Ohio State vs. 8. Boise State (at large 2)
2. Florida vs. 7. Michigan (at large 1)
3. USC vs. 6. Wake Forest
4. Louisville vs. 5. Oklahoma

I defy anyone to look at this line up of games and say this is bad for college football. I might be in favor of seeding the teams differently, but the gist is there.

As a Missouri fan, I'd still be excited my Tigers are in the Sun Bowl. The only teams who wouldn't be excited about their bowls would be teams who are happy about their current bowls as it is. Nothing will impact how happy Nevada is to be playing Miami in the Smurf Turf Bowl just as nothing will impact how depressed Miami is to be playing in it. A playoff wouldn't change that.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

No, the solution is to do like the PAC 10 and have every team play each other. That way, wisconsin would have played Ohio state and would deserve a high ranking or be exposed

The Pac-10 doesn't have every team play each other. Each team gets to miss one team a year. Unless this changed in the last year.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by mtolson

What do people think we would be looking at if Michigan had beat Ohio State. Just curious.

Michigan and Ohio State switch places bowl-wise, and Florida has a more decisive advantage over Ohio State, probably winning the computer rankings outright rather than splitting them as they did with Michigan.

Not really all that remarkable... definitely less angst.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Celeval

This is the argument I'm sick of. How does this make any sense? Seriously? UF had an off week on 10/21 while Michigan played and beat (now-unranked) Iowa. Here, let's move that game to this week. Know what? Same records. Want a better team? Okay, move the Notre Dame win to this week, that does look impressive. But, oh, wait, Michigan jumped from #11/#13 to #6/#6 with that win. Maybe they wouldn't BE in front of Florida if they hadn't already played their games.

Even better. Directional North and South are both ranked #4 (tie). Directional North plays and beats #20, #21 and #22 while Directional South is idle. Directional North is now ranked #4, Directional South #5. Meanwhile, DN now takes three weeks off and Directional South beats #1, #2, and #3. Ooooops, can't drop North while they don't play. Now North is #1 and South is #2. That makes a ton of sense.

The problem I have is the potential over dropping a team, like Michigan, more so to avoid a re-match.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The Pac-10 doesn't have every team play each other. Each team gets to miss one team a year. Unless this changed in the last year.

It has...this year was the first year every team plays every team

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

No, the solution is to do like the PAC 10 and have every team play each other. That way, wisconsin would have played Ohio state and would deserve a high ranking or be exposed

That really only works out well in the Pac-10. And, even then, only with the 12-game schedule. None of the other BCS conferences have exactly 10-teams AND they all want to get enough cheapie, OOC wins so that they can be bowl eligible and bring in bowl/TV money for the conference. It works pretty well with nine conference games, but would be real tough with ten or eleven.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

It has...this year was the first year every team plays every team

Thanks for that information, did not know that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'd prefer a 16-team playoff. Each conference gets an autobid (ends the charade of having to cook up special stuff to get e.g. Boise State in), which leaves five at-large teams (or possibly six this year, as one non-BCS conf. may not qualify). Max three per conference instead of two.

[Ragone]

Honestly, i'd like to see the notre dame rule for the bcs be scrapped.. force them to go to a conference or be treated like a mid-major

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Honestly, i'd like to see the notre dame rule for the bcs be scrapped.. force them to go to a conference or be treated like a mid-major

So would most, but we all know that won't happen for a long while (until the "Notre Dame mystique" wears off a bit more).