Miami and VT - Woah!

[Abe Sargent]

Pretty intense, but its 24-0 already? Dang.


-Anxiety

[cuervo72]

Miami is in deeeeeep trouble.

[HeavyReign]

According to ESPN Gamecast, Virginia Tech hasn't completed a pass in the game. If that is accurate, all I can say is wow. Looks like Miami is getting hurt by turnovers. They've got 4 and VT has 2.

[HeavyReign]

Nevermind. VT brought in Vick and he just threw a TD pass. 31-0.

[kingnebwsu]

Go BCS!!!

[HeavyReign]

I don't know....I'm starting to think things might work out this year. I think USC is playing better than anyone besides Oklahoma right now and they should have a good shot at being in the #2 spots when the new rankings come out.

[mckerney]

Doesn't matter who OU plays in the title game, they will burninate them.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know....I'm starting to think things might work out this year. I think USC is playing better than anyone besides Oklahoma right now and they should have a good shot at being in the #2 spots when the new rankings come out.

Perhaps, but plenty of other 1 loss teams may have a valid argument to be there instead of USC (maybe even VT... after all WVU is a better team than Cal).

[cartman]

And, depending on how things play out, a 2 loss team could possibly sneak in the back door, like Colorado almost did back in 2001.

[ISiddiqui]

And that 2 loss team would probably be Michigan .

[HeavyReign]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Perhaps, but plenty of other 1 loss teams may have a valid argument to be there instead of USC (maybe even VT... after all WVU is a better team than Cal).

Is WVU really better than Cal? 4-4 versus 5-5? Jim's rankings put WVU at 72 and Cal at 44. The Anderson & Hester poll had Cal at 55 and WVU at 69. I think realistically right now you could look at those losses being fairly equal. I didn't check any other ratings so there may be some that put WVU ahead of Cal. Looking at both teams, they haven't managed any other quality wins.

I'd have no problem with VT playing in the game but it seems like they will need help right now unless they get a nice jump based on the win. I see USC winning out so it is likely that they will sit at #2 in both of the human polls. Then the computers come into question. For some reason the computers don't seem to like VT right now. They were enough to keep them out of the BCS top 15 with a poll ranking of 10.5. We'll have a much better idea of how this might play out when the new rankings come out. Of the teams currently rated near the top of the rankings, USC looks to me to have the best odds of winning out.

Realistically, if there are multiple one loss teams someone is going to get left out whether we are using this system or not. Human voters can be influenced by the wrong things. The computer polls all have their quirks. Now if we do end up with a two loss Michigan team in the championship game, then we have a problem. I can't see a team that lost to a bad Oregon team as National Champions.

[JHandley]

Originally posted by HeavyReign


For some reason the computers don't seem to like VT right now.

Central Florida
James Madison
UConn
Rutgers
Syracuse
Temple

6 Automatic wins, 6 reasons the computers don't like VT right now. They play 1 (could be 2 depending on how A&M finishes their year) team in the top 20 all year.

I think USC wins out, but I don't see anyone yet this year that can play with OU.

[Abe Sargent]

A couple of the previous Tech opponents appear to be on the upswing, however, so their schedule may get better.

-Anxiety

[ISiddiqui]

Is WVU really better than Cal?

After watching both, I'd say yes. WVU in their past two games (Miami and VT) have shown they are a pretty good team. They should have beaten Miami and they destroyed VT. Sure they lost to teams they shouldn't have in the beginning of the season, but right now they are playing great. Cal, while decent, hasn't shown me they are as good as WVU.

if there are multiple one loss teams someone is going to get left out whether we are using this system or not.

No.. not if there is a playoff :cute:

[korme]

Miami falls. Big.

I love it, I love it.

[HeavyReign]

No.. not if there is a playoff :cute:

They aren't giving us a playoff. They are giving us a system where two teams will play for the championship. Given that fact, my statement applies. If there are multiple one loss teams, someone is going to get left out.

[finkenst]

imagine if oklahoma were to lose ....

[mckerney]

Miami's getting the short end being the last team to lose. If this were to happen in week one they'd most likely be ranked #2 right now.

[Noop]

Miami is in deep po po... I knew those guys had attitudes but last night was a disgrace.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by finkenst
imagine if oklahoma were to lose ....

I don't know who they play the rest of the season, but if they keep playing the way they've been playing lately, there's no chance

[HeavyReign]

Here's a breakdown of the chances for each of the current one loss teams:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/s...=/bcsroad/1101

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by mckerney
Miami's getting the short end being the last team to lose. If this were to happen in week one they'd most likely be ranked #2 right now.

That's true, but they also got smoked by VT, whereas USC lost in overtime to a dangerous Cal team.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by dawgfan
That's true, but they also got smoked by VT, whereas USC lost in overtime to a dangerous Cal team.

Still doesn't make it right. I'm not trying to promote one one-loss team over another, but it just seems wrong that everyone is now talking up USC just because they were the contender that lost first.

Small mini-rant: Anyone else seen Sagarin's BCS ratings? Sure VT doesn't have a top schedule, but at least it's average. Meanwhile, Sagarin's post-Saturday ratings have VT at #20, while Bowling Green is #4. WTF?

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm just so excited USC is still at least in the National Championship picture. If USC makes it to the Sugar Bowl, I think I will spontaneously combust if I don't somehow get tickets considering I now live in New Orleans. Actually, I think I will spontanouely combust with joy if I do get the tickets.

[cthomer5000]

Can you guys address the real issue? The real issue is the fact that Rutgers may be able to sneak into the San Francisco bowl if 2 Big East teams play in BCS bowls.

And no, I'm not kidding.

[ISiddiqui]

You should be... kidding that is .

Rutgers is so not making a bowl. Admit it. You must be the only Rutgers alum I've met that believes we have even a snowball's chance in Hell!

[mckerney]

Originally posted by VPI97
Still doesn't make it right. I'm not trying to promote one one-loss team over another, but it just seems wrong that everyone is now talking up USC just because they were the contender that lost first.

Exactly. It's not a new thing, but it seems like the best thing to do if you're a one loss team is to lose before any of the other one loss teams, as teams always get downgraded when they lose, even if it would seem that they should still be ranked ahead of the team behind them.

[ISiddiqui]

just seems wrong that everyone is now talking up USC just because they were the contender that lost first.

Not so. Everyone isn't JUST talking up USC now. USC was being talked up since the beginning of the year, when people saw they were just as explosive without Palmer and Fargas. Many people (myself included) said they were the 2nd best team in the country, even after they lost to Cal. It isn't like the bandwagon just pulled up.

[HeavyReign]

The one loss team that lost the earliest doesn't always get the nod. In 2000, between Miami, Washington, and Florida State, I'm pretty sure FSU was the last to lose but got the championship game appearance against Oklahoma.

[General Mike]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Can you guys address the real issue? The real issue is the fact that Rutgers may be able to sneak into the San Francisco bowl if 2 Big East teams play in BCS bowls.

And no, I'm not kidding.

If Hairston, Moses, and Hutchinson are healthy for Saturday's game, UConn is going down. I know the Knights aren't going to beat Miami at the O.B.. but B.C. and Syracuse are both so inconsistent that the Knights could win either of those games.

Anyway, I think RU would be more likely to be chosen for the Continental Tire Bowl, if they went to one, based on fan travel dynamics, and other things.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by General Mike
If Hairston, Moses, and Hutchinson are healthy for Saturday's game, UConn is going down. I know the Knights aren't going to beat Miami at the O.B.. but B.C. and Syracuse are both so inconsistent that the Knights could win either of those games.

Anyway, I think RU would be more likely to be chosen for the Continental Tire Bowl, if they went to one, based on fan travel dynamics, and other things.

that would be fine with me. A few friends and I have vowed to travel to any Rutgers bowl game this year. Carolina would make it a road trip instead of a flight. I already have the week off, planning a vacation around a Rutgers bowl game would be a dream come true.

A man can dream....

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Noop
Miami is in deep po po...

But, virtually assured of finishing ahead of FSU, were it to come down to those two.

[Butter]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
that would be fine with me. A few friends and I have vowed to travel to any Rutgers bowl game this year. Carolina would make it a road trip instead of a flight. I already have the week off, planning a vacation around a Rutgers bowl game would be a dream come true.

A man can dream....

Good luck! That Michigan State loss isn't looking that bad right now. They're a top-20 team. Pitt, WVU, and VT are all top-20 caliber as well.

It'd be something if it all came down to the season-ender vs. Syracuse. Probably have to beat Boston College for that to happen, though.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Samdari
But, virtually assured of finishing ahead of FSU, were it to come down to those two.

The way I understand this, they'll essentially fudge the numbers to ensure this happens? Is that how this works? So, If Oklahoma and/or USC loses, and FSU would move up to one of the top two spots, the "system" would find a way for UM to jump FSU, even if the formula doesn't work out that way?

I know I have a vested interest in the outcome, but honestly, I don't like that idea at all, since (a) FSU lost earlier in the season; and (b) Miami lost to a lower-ranked opponent. If Miami was in that position, I'd feel the same way.

What happens next year when FSU/Miami play in the first game of the season? If FSU beats Miami, and both teams finish with one loss, should that automatically prevent Miami from being the team to get the championship berth, just because they lost to FSU in the first game of the season? What if FSU was to go undefeated until the Florida game (last game of the season)? A team with an end-of-November loss should get the berth over a team that lost on September 3rd?

This is why the BCS sucks, among a number of othere reasons. Because if you're going to use a computer to decide who plays who, fudging it to ensure the outcome you want renders the whole damn thing meaningless, IMO.

[Butter]

I've long since given up hope of having the BCS changed for the better.

How many teams stand to get screwed this year? Ohio St., LSU, Miami, Va. Tech, Florida State.... All with 1 loss. Everybody SAYS USC is better than all those 1 loss teams, but how can you really know unless they play, or we at least have a playoff of some type?

Last year everybody thought Miami was leagues better than Ohio St. too. And we all know how that turned out. I know the BCS "worked" that year, but a playoff system would've worked just as well, if not better.

If they would only just take their bowl blinders off and see just how much money a playoff system would generate... even more than bowl games. MUCH more.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
If they would only just take their bowl blinders off and see just how much money a playoff system would generate... even more than bowl games. MUCH more.

Can you provide any evidence that a playoff system would be more lucrative? We've all been over through this argument 50 times, and I just don't see it at all.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Miami lost to a lower-ranked opponent.

They did? Last I checked, VT was ahead of Miami in both polls...

[Huckleberry]

Did someone around here cite Jim's rankings and the Anderson-Hester poll as justification for their argument? Ha.

Same deal with the critique of Sagarin's BCS ratings. It shouldn't have taken this long to see that ratings that ignore margin of victory are totally worthless in football.

[Butter]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Can you provide any evidence that a playoff system would be more lucrative? We've all been over through this argument 50 times, and I just don't see it at all.

More games = more money.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by VPI97
They did? Last I checked, VT was ahead of Miami in both polls...

This is determined at the time of the games. When FSU and Miami played, FSU was #5, Miami #2. When Miami and VT played, Miami was #2, VT #11. FSU lost to #2, Miami lost to #11.

[Huckleberry]

But what does their ranking at the time have to do with determining who the better team is right now? Shouldn't the actual ability of the team, as determined by the rankings after more games ahve been played, be used?

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Huckleberry
But what does their ranking at the time have to do with determining who the better team is right now? Shouldn't the actual ability of the team, as determined by the rankings after more games ahve been played, be used?

Well, first of all, to answer your question, that's the way wins and losses vs. ranked teams have ALWAYS been counted. Otherwise, no team can ever claim to have beaten the #1 team, since when they lose, they're no longer #1. No. Illinois can claim a victory over a "ranked" opponent in Maryland, despite the fact that Maryland hasn't been ranked in quite a few weeks.

But... your point doesn't matter either, does it? IF FSU and Miami finish with 1 loss each, and VT loses the rest of its games - meaning that it would finish far below Miami, who VT beat, and FSU, who lost to Miami, FSU would still get screwed.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
This is determined at the time of the games. When FSU and Miami played, FSU was #5, Miami #2. When Miami and VT played, Miami was #2, VT #11. FSU lost to #2, Miami lost to #11.

No, it's not. The BCS adjustments and win bonuses are all determined by end of year rankings, not by rankings at the time of the game....should Miami & VT win out, VT will most likely be the higher ranked team.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
More games = more money.

There won't be more games. And the money will go into fewer schools. I think the "cartel" perception would only get worse, because the big conferences would be absolutely swimming in cash.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by VPI97
No, it's not. The BCS adjustments and win bonuses are all determined by end of year rankings, not by rankings at the time of the game....should Miami & VT win out, VT will most likely be the higher ranked team.

I guess we're talking about two different things. I'm not talking about the BCS, per se, but how the rankings (which are, of course, used in the BCS) are affected by a team's wins and losses against quality opponents. FSU didn't fall very far because they lost to a higher-ranked team. Miami fell hard because they lost to a lower-ranked team. If VT loses each of the rest of its games, Miami's ranking is not going to suffer because of it.

And again, it doesn't matter, because even if Miami's lone loss is to VT, and VT somehow ends up unranked at the end of the season, and FSU's lone loss is to Miami, Miami would still get the nod.

[QuikSand]

General question here - regardless of how I/we might feel about the various teams involved in the current instance.

There's a lot of talk about comparing the quality of the teams that defeated your team - and using that as an indicator of your team's quality. This seems to have its own life, above and beyond the general "strength of schedule" that we all understand, but might be too hard to discuss generally.

Take two teams:

Team A goes 9-1, but loses to a team ranked #5 in the country
Team B goes 9-1, but loses to a team outside the Top 25

...let's even assume that these two teams have played a schedule that is inseparable in terms of overall strangths -- maybe the even played the exact same 10 teams. Let's try to leave everything else equal, too - margins of victory, and so forth.

If I am hearing the arguments in this thread and elsewhere, then many people would say that Team A above is "better' or "more deserving" than Team B, because they lost to a better team. Of course, Team B beat that better team or an equivalent (in order for our conversation about everything else being equal), but went out and lost to a lesser team.

What is it about losing to a good team and beating a bad team that is necessarily better than losing to a bad team and beating a good team?

[Butter]

A team that only loses to good teams seems more consistent. A team that can lose or beat anyone at any time (witness: Florida) may well have some of the best talent in the country, but can you really call them the best team? They may be the best team at a given point in time (like last year's Southern Cal team), but maybe not best for the entire season.

But the rankings are very arbitrary, so it's hard to say who is a better team when someone loses to an unranked team early in the season.

[Butter]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
There won't be more games. And the money will go into fewer schools. I think the "cartel" perception would only get worse, because the big conferences would be absolutely swimming in cash.

But wouldn't an ideal playoff system give teams from the other non-BCS schools a chance to get in? I think a good playoff system would involve at least the winners of ALL the conferences (except perhaps the Sun Belt), plus a few wild-cards.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
But wouldn't an ideal playoff system give teams from the other non-BCS schools a chance to get in? I think a good playoff system would involve at least the winners of ALL the conferences (except perhaps the Sun Belt), plus a few wild-cards.

That's not my concern at all. I'm just making the point that:

1. There will not be more games under a playoff system
2. There will not be more money under a playoff system.
2b. Money in a playoff system would be more concisely paid out to bigger schools and conferences.


Would the MAC get as many automatic berths as the Big 10? How would you determine wildcard spots for a playoff system? Rankings? BCS style formulas? A playoff system would in no way remove all the second-guessing from the post-season.


With bowl games being such a historically large part of college football, I don't really understand why people get so upset about the bowl structure.

[Huckleberry]

A 16-team playoff could include all conference champions and then whatever number of wild-card teams are needed to fill it out selected in order of BCS ranking.