College Football Week 11 Thread

[Vegas Vic]

If Kansas ends the season 13-0 with back to back victories over the #4 and #5 ranked teams, and doesn't get selected for the BCS Championship game, there's going to be hell to pay. It will be the first time that a team with the best record from the BCS conferences will be left out.

There has been controversy in the past where teams with identical records from BCS conferences have been snubbed (USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004), but not a team with the best record.

[st.cronin]

The entire purpose of the BCS is to make sure that if there are two undefeated big conference teams, they play in a bowl game. Since we will have at most one of those this year, and the most likely scenario is 4 or 5 1 loss teams, the BCS this year is moot. In years like this, I wish they would just go back to the old way - Rose Bowl is Ohio State/Michigan vs. Oregon, Sugar Bowl is LSU vs. somebody, etc.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The entire purpose of the BCS is to make sure that if there are two undefeated big conference teams, they play in a bowl game.

I believe that the purpose is to take the two "best" teams and pit them in a National Championship game. It's defining "best" that has been the sticking point.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I wish they would just go back to the old way - Rose Bowl is Ohio State/Michigan vs. Oregon, Sugar Bowl is LSU vs. somebody, etc.

Damn right.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I believe that the purpose is to take the two "best" teams and pit them in a National Championship game. It's defining "best" that has been the sticking point.

As I've said before, the BCS only works if there are only two undefeated teams, or two one loss teams. Otherwise it is chaos.

EDIT: For the record, I really enjoyed the old way. Sure, you wanted someone to be #1, but you knew it was exactly what it was, someone's opinion. The BCS was an effort to earn big bucks by crowning a champion, and its really just a sham.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

As I've said before, the BCS only works if there are only two undefeated teams, or two one loss teams. Otherwise it is chaos.

EDIT: For the record, I really enjoyed the old way. Sure, you wanted someone to be #1, but you knew it was exactly what it was, someone's opinion. The BCS was an effort to earn big bucks by crowning a champion, and its really just a sham.

Mostly agree, although I do sort of enjoy the BCS. I miss what was, but what is, is not at all bad.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

As I've said before, the BCS only works if there are only two undefeated teams, or two one loss teams. Otherwise it is chaos.

EDIT: For the record, I really enjoyed the old way. Sure, you wanted someone to be #1, but you knew it was exactly what it was, someone's opinion. The BCS was an effort to earn big bucks by crowning a champion, and its really just a sham.

I disagree with that -- those are the only cases when the BCS isn't needed. The BCS "works" whenever that isn't the case. There's always going to be controversy -- the BCS's "job" is to pick the best two teams by certain criteria, no matter what. And it's done it every time -- there's never been a tie for the #2 team.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I disagree with that -- those are the only cases when the BCS isn't needed. The BCS "works" whenever that isn't the case. There's always going to be controversy -- the BCS's "job" is to pick the best two teams by certain criteria, no matter what. And it's done it every time -- there's never been a tie for the #2 team.

Yeah, but there has always been disagreement about who the #2 team is outside of those conditions. The formula for the BCS has changed several times due to perceived slights. Since 2000, there has only been two years without controversy.

Again, the BCS is there to bring those teams together in a game to earn lots of money. Prior to this, the OSU might be in the Rose Bowl while Miami was in the Orange so they wouldn't play, etc.

[Mr. Wednesday]

The purpose of the BCS agreement, generally, is to guarantee that the two best teams play against each other (and not someone else) in a bowl.

The purpose of the BCS rankings is to identify the two best teams. They're only really needed when there are multiple teams with the same record vying for one spot, though.

[KWhit]

The problem though is that it's impossible to tell who those top two teams are. With only 12 games played, against different calibers of competition, and uncertainty about strength of the individual conferences the teams play in, there is no way to know who the most deserving teams are. It is very possible that the best / most deserving team gets left out.

[Warhammer]

Let me ask this question, are we reasonably happy with how the individual conferences determine their conference champion?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let me ask this question, are we reasonably happy with how the individual conferences determine their conference champion?

Even if we are, all conferences are NOT created equal, so I don't think you can just put all conference champions in a playoff format to battle it out.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let me ask this question, are we reasonably happy with how the individual conferences determine their conference champion?

I think every conference should either have a conference championship game or a full round-robin format (Pac Ten). The Big Ten's setup is absurd.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Even if we are, all conferences are NOT created equal, so I don't think you can just put all conference champions in a playoff format to battle it out.

Aw man... You take away all the fun.

EDIT: I still think it would be better than the current system. Even if they were lambs to slaughter all conference champs deserve the shot.

[KWhit]

But we definitely DO need a playoff system. I think the current BCS formula would even be fine to use. We just have to open it up to 8 teams. I think that's the right number because at that point you are assured of all truly worthy teams getting into the playoff.

There would be arguments about seeds 8 and 9, but at that point, we're not talking about any team that is obviously worthy of a title shot, so I don't have a big problem leaving the #9 team out. However at only 4 teams (or especially in our current system with just 2 teams), you could be leaving out the true best team in the nation.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by KWhit

But we definitely DO need a playoff system.

No. We don't "need" anything, let alone "definitely" needing anything. Why are you and other playoffs advocates so needing of one? Many were/would be content with the old bowl system for that was good enough and life moved on.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No. We don't "need" anything, let alone "definitely" needing anything. Why are you and other playoffs advocates so needing of one? Many were/would be content with the old bowl system for that was good enough and life moved on.

Why are you and other bowl advocates so insistent that a playoff system not be implemented?

[Dr. Sak]

I like the BCS, only because of the interesting talking points it makes. A playoff system would crown a true champion.

It's funny that Division 1a football is the only NCAA sport where the winner is not the NCAA champion. They are the BCS Champion.

[MrIllini]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think every conference should either have a conference championship game or a full round-robin format (Pac Ten). The Big Ten's setup is absurd.

Big Ten fan agreeing with you there.

It's hard to figure which team would make the best 12th though. Notre Dame has rebuffed past overtures, which is understandable...they'd hate to lose that national TV deal just to become the next doormat in a conference when they can buff up on service academy wins every year.

Oh wait...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Word is that if MU and KU take care of business this week, the MU/KU matchup will be the nationwide game at 7:00 PM on ABC. Also, the College Gameday show will likely be in KC that week.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Word is that if MU and KU take care of business this week, the MU/KU matchup will be the nationwide game at 7:00 PM on ABC. Also, the College Gameday show will likely be in KC that week.

How could it NOT be?

[MizzouRah]

My friends are going down to the KU-MU game in an RV the night before, I was going to go, TP SI's place, spray paint MBBF's car with "Xbox rulez", etc.. but I have to be in a FRIGGING WEDDING!! ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

My friends are going down to the KU-MU game in an RV the night before, I was going to go, TP SI's place, spray paint MBBF's car with "Xbox rulez", etc.. but I have to be in a FRIGGING WEDDING!! ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Your priority setting skills have to be called into question at this point. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. You likely are attending an event that will mean nothing 5 years from now.

[ISiddiqui]

Who's wedding? That may make the difference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Why are you and other bowl advocates so insistent that a playoff system not be implemented?

Can't speak for all of us, but for me, I simply find the bowl system (although I would prefer it resemble it's pre-BCS configuration more than it does now) to be more interesting than a playoff. Or equally so at worst, meaning that the playoff would add absolutely nothing for me.

Although I don't live & die with college football's regular season the way many in the South do, I watch pretty much every bowl game out there, regardless of any so-so matchups (h2h bowl games notwithstanding of course). Yeah, I'm that guy who actually watches the Poinsettia Bowl.

And I watch it with a very similar interest level to any other game I don't have a rooting interest in ... and that includes middle round games of the NCAA basketball tournament.

It's a game, it exists to entertain me. And since it fulfills that purpose and there's no reason to believe it would entertain me any more with a playoff, why would I want it tinkered with?

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Why are you and other bowl advocates so insistent that a playoff system not be implemented?

For me, I don't like the idea of teams can lose games and still get a shot at being the champion. Under the current system, you have to "bring it" every week because you don't know if you can afford a loss. To me, the regular season becomes one big playoff.

Just look at Ohio State, one late season foul-up has pretty much cost them their shot as a number of other teams jumped over them. I question if how far the fell was justified but that is what happens with late season losses. The later you get into the season, the more pressure that mounts to win - just like a playoff.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Can't speak for all of us, but for me, I simply find the bowl system (although I would prefer it resemble it's pre-BCS configuration more than it does now) to be more interesting than a playoff. Or equally so at worst, meaning that the playoff would add absolutely nothing for me.

Although I don't live & die with college football's regular season the way many in the South do, I watch pretty much every bowl game out there, regardless of any so-so matchups (h2h bowl games notwithstanding of course). Yeah, I'm that guy who actually watches the Poinsettia Bowl.

And I watch it with a very similar interest level to any other game I don't have a rooting interest in ... and that includes middle round games of the NCAA basketball tournament.

It's a game, it exists to entertain me. And since it fulfills that purpose and there's no reason to believe it would entertain me any more with a playoff, why would I want it tinkered with?

This is pretty much where I am at. I actually don't feel like the BCS-system has negatively affected my enjoyment of bowl games. I guess under the old system, there was a chance that two, maybe three, bowl games had national title implications (as opposed to really just one now), but that doesn't really bother me. Unless Michigan is fighting for a national championship, I just want to watch interesting match-ups and entertaining games. For example, I really don't think I would have enjoyed last year's Oklahoma-Boise State game any more under the old system as I did under the current one, just as I don't think I would have cared any more/less about the LSU/Notre Dame game under the old system.

If anything, the one year it really would have mattered to me, 1997, I would have much preferred the BCS system so Michigan and Nebraska could have gone head-to-head for the national championship.

I like how the current system (or older system) generates all the debate about which conference is stronger, who should be playing in what bowl game, all those interesting talking points that bsak referenced above. That's a huge part of college football.

Unless Michigan is playing for the national championship (which is really kind of rare), I could care less who was crowned "National Champion".

All that said, I could live with say, an 8 team (or less) play-off system, so long as they kept the other bowl games in tact.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Who's wedding? That may make the difference.

Not mine... my wife's friend, which makes it worse!!!

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

If anything, the one year it really would have mattered to me, 1997, I would have much preferred the BCS system so Michigan and Nebraska could have gone head-to-head for the national championship.

I feel the same way you do. 1994 pissed me off because Nebraska got the title because of the sympathy vote for Osbourne. At worst Penn State should've shared it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Not mine... my wife's friend, which makes it worse!!!

Oh, it's just her friend. I think that's justifiable skipping. Take the angry looks and whatnot for the game. It could be a once in a lifetime thing.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by knolysis

For me, I don't like the idea of teams can lose games and still get a shot at being the champion. Under the current system, you have to "bring it" every week because you don't know if you can afford a loss. To me, the regular season becomes one big playoff.

Just look at Ohio State, one late season foul-up has pretty much cost them their shot as a number of other teams jumped over them. I question if how far the fell was justified but that is what happens with late season losses. The later you get into the season, the more pressure that mounts to win - just like a playoff.

The problem with this argument is that it is preferable then to play an easier schedule and hope everyone slips up. By and large, if you are in a top 6 conference, you should have an easy non-conference schedule that you can guarantee wins against. The reason is that SoS typically only comes into play against teams that have similar records. Plus, the inherent bias in the poll system keeps some teams from advancing up the polls.

Look at Kansas. They have played pretty much the same teams that Oklahoma has, yet a one loss Sooners team is above them in the polls (AP, Coaches, Harris). Why should a loss to a team late in the year be worth more than a loss early in a year? Should a team be rewarded for playing a bunch of 8-3 teams rather than mostly 4-7 teams?

To me the current system does nothing to solve the issues we had under the old bowl system. Under the old system we knew we were getting a popularity contest. You knew that wins had to look impressive if you were the #3 team and hoped to leapfrog #2 if the #1 team lost. Oddly enough, pollsters had no problem doing that, but if the #2 team won convincingly and #1 squeaked out a win, there were issues with #2 jumping #1.

Under the BCS we have loads of discussions not about how teams play, but who should be ranked #2. We don't have many issues about #1, but who gets the right to play #1? Last year, why weren't Louisville, Wisconsin, or Boise State in the picture to play OSU? How do we know they weren't better than OSU, or Florida for that matter? Yet, they all had one loss or no losses. Would a playoff have fixed this issue? Not entirely, but there would have been far less debate about the outcome.

The quest for #1 is a quest to become the best team. What does that mean? Is that the best team over the course of a season, which means that when they are crowned, they might not be the best team currently? Or, does it mean they are the best team at the end of the season? What do we want to crown?

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The quest for #1 is a quest to become the best team. What does that mean? Is that the best team over the course of a season, which means that when they are crowned, they might not be the best team currently? Or, does it mean they are the best team at the end of the season? What do we want to crown?

You ask too many questions

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not entirely, but there would have been far less debate about the outcome.

You have to understand, though, that the debate is a big part of what makes college football what it is. College Football seasons aren't just debated during the season and then forgotten like most other sports. College Football fans will debate seasons for years (sometimes decades).

Talk about which conference is better is part of what College Football is built upon and the bowl system feeds this discussion more than any system anyone could possibly come up with.

I'm typically not a traditionalist when it comes to sports, but I wouldn't trade the current college football setup for anything.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not entirely, but there would have been far less debate about the outcome.

I kinda of like the debate.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The quest for #1 is a quest to become the best team. What does that mean? Is that the best team over the course of a season, which means that when they are crowned, they might not be the best team currently? Or, does it mean they are the best team at the end of the season? What do we want to crown?

I think the way the system is set up it aims for the best team over the course of a season, but more often than not rewards the teams that are playing better at the end of the season. A team like LSU can rebound from an early-to-mid-season loss to Kentucky, whereas a a team like OSU just wont be able to rebound from a late-in-the-season loss to Illinois.

Is that fair? Probably not, but it's how the system works and I think most everyone understands that.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What do we want to crown?

Ideally, The University of Michigan.

[Warhammer]

Talking to people about complaints about the BCS and bowl system is like talking to my wife. They want to bitch, they don't want to solve problems.

Arguably the biggest trouble I got into with the wife, she was complaining about managing people at work. I tell her what she should do. She tells me again, and I repeat to her what she said, and then repeat what she should do. She gets mad and begins yelling that I am not listening. I ask her about what I had wrong. She says nothing. Then I ask why she's pissed at me. It was because I was trying to solve the problem rather than listening to her bitch.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Talking to people about complaints about the BCS and bowl system is like talking to my wife. They want to bitch, they don't want to solve problems.

Arguably the biggest trouble I got into with the wife, she was complaining about managing people at work. I tell her what she should do. She tells me again, and I repeat to her what she said, and then repeat what she should do. She gets mad and begins yelling that I am not listening. I ask her about what I had wrong. She says nothing. Then I ask why she's pissed at me. It was because I was trying to solve the problem rather than listening to her bitch.

Who's your wife in this scenario exactly?

Edit: pix pls thx.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Talking to people about complaints about the BCS and bowl system is like talking to my wife. They want to bitch, they don't want to solve problems.

Arguably the biggest trouble I got into with the wife, she was complaining about managing people at work. I tell her what she should do. She tells me again, and I repeat to her what she said, and then repeat what she should do. She gets mad and begins yelling that I am not listening. I ask her about what I had wrong. She says nothing. Then I ask why she's pissed at me. It was because I was trying to solve the problem rather than listening to her bitch.

And those that are pro-playoff lay out their perfect playoff scenario, which no two are exactly the same, and claim it will be the solution to everyone's problems no matter how many flaws it has.

No system is perfect. No one wants a perfect system. The people that are happy with the BCS enjoy college football the way it is. Those that don't are the ones that keep bringing it up and beating the dead horse despite the fact that its clear the BCS is going nowhere any time soon.

Sports are about making money. Debate is good for the sport and makes it fun. The BCS accomplishes both of these.

[Warhammer]

Eh, my previous post was a little too harsh, didn't mean it to come out like that.

Much of my frustration comes from living in the land of the SEC. Every year, someone is out to screw someone from down here. Peyton should have won the Heisman, the winner of the SEC should be in the BCS game every year, Florida last year was the team of the milennium, LSU has won 7 national championships, etc.

I have no problem and enjoy talking to realistic fans. The problem is most fans down here are not realistic. Hell, there are people that claim that Ole Miss would be a top program in the Big 10 or Big 12 this year. Sorry, but a team that is lucky to escape with a win against a mediocre C-USA team and has another win against a Div-IAA/II team is not going to do much better against other top programs in big conferences.

[Atocep]

Meh, I didn't see it as harsh. I enjoy the discussion and I sure as hell don't take anything on a message board personally.

Oddly enough, I grew up in West Virginia which is an area that has no conference tradition. Big East champions don't exactly have the same bragging rights as a Big 10 or SEC champion, yet I still prefer the BCS to a playoff. I think both have their strengths and weaknesses, but for whatever reason I'm content to stick with the BCS, I just wish they'd quit tweaking it in an attempt to cover up its holes.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Eh, my previous post was a little too harsh, didn't mean it to come out like that.

Much of my frustration comes from living in the land of the SEC. Every year, someone is out to screw someone from down here. Peyton should have won the Heisman, the winner of the SEC should be in the BCS game every year, Florida last year was the team of the milennium, LSU has won 7 national championships, etc.

I have no problem and enjoy talking to realistic fans. The problem is most fans down here are not realistic. Hell, there are people that claim that Ole Miss would be a top program in the Big 10 or Big 12 this year. Sorry, but a team that is lucky to escape with a win against a mediocre C-USA team and has another win against a Div-IAA/II team is not going to do much better against other top programs in big conferences.

lol. When I moved out of the South, I didn't know how to handle the fact the average person I ran into wasn't much of a college football fan. Sacrilegious!

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Look at Kansas. They have played pretty much the same teams that Oklahoma has, yet a one loss Sooners team is above them in the polls (AP, Coaches, Harris).

Well, not really. Oklahoma has beaten both Missouri and Texas. I'm not sure Kansas has played a ranked team this season, and their best win is probably last week's over Oklahoma State.

That said, I'm in agreement with most others that if Kansas gets by Missouri and Oklahoma, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be in the title game.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by knolysis

For me, I don't like the idea of teams can lose games and still get a shot at being the champion. Under the current system, you have to "bring it" every week because you don't know if you can afford a loss.

Just like LSU brought it every week. And Oregon. And Oklahoma. And Ohio State. And West Virginia. And Missouri...

Oh well, Warhammer answered this better than I could.

SI

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh, it's just her friend. I think that's justifiable skipping. Take the angry looks and whatnot for the game. It could be a once in a lifetime thing.

Yeah, you're right... I don't get sex anymore anyway.