BCS talk

• WebFire

  ptown_trojans_1;1001880 wrote:Based on what?
  KSU is in the top 10, Michigan is not.

  Yeah, I would actually say other way around. KSU more deserving but not necessarily BSU. BSU schedule is not good.
• enigmaax

  Crimson streak;1001893 wrote:Oregon lost twice though and Stanford only once

  But all of the arguments against Alabama being in the title game apply to Stanford in a play-off. Stanford has zero significant wins. If it is the "system" that doesn't work, why would the world suddenly be a better place by simply opening up two more spots and putting in a team that has absolutely no legitimate claim to a shot?
• WebFire

  Zombaypirate;1001912 wrote:LOL how convienent. Mich St crushed Mich and is a superior team to them. Teams might want to consider turning down their conference championship games, if you lose you are screwed.
  
  FBS has offically become a total joke.

  Don't lose 3 games and you go to BCS.
  
  Funny people argue that the whole season is CFB's playoff, yet a bunch are whining about so and so beat so and so, ignoring the rest of the year.
• dave

  trep14;1001910 wrote:I would absolutely tune in to watch Boise play a bowl game. They are an exciting team to watch.

  well then you are in luck, they made one
• enigmaax

  Zombaypirate;1001912 wrote:FBS has offically become a total joke.

  If you could get a major sponsor for that....
• WebFire

  Zombaypirate;1001912 wrote:LOL how convienent. Mich St crushed Mich and is a superior team to them. Teams might want to consider turning down their conference championship games, if you lose you are screwed.
  
  FBS has offically become a total joke.

  Also. MSU didn't "crush" Michigan. Maybe teams should consider *winning* their conference game.
• dlazz

  # of BCS bowls I shall watch this year: 0
• WebFire

  dave;1001904 wrote:Surprised Baylor got left out after being eligible. You could really market RGIII vs Denard

  Agree, that could have brought in some ratings.
• WebFire

  dlazz;1001928 wrote:# of BCS bowls I shall watch this year: 0

  I'm sure you'll be missed.
• dlazz

  WebFire;1001934 wrote:I'm sure you'll be missed.

  I'd be pumped too if my undeserving team won a bid.
• WebFire

  dlazz;1001939 wrote:I'd be pumped too if my undeserving team won a bid.

  
• trep14

  dave;1001922 wrote:well then you are in luck, they made one

  I'm aware. And I'll watch it.
• Mulva

  

  enigmaax;1001917 wrote:why would the world suddenly be a better place by simply opening up two more spots and putting in a team that has absolutely no legitimate claim to a shot?

  Leaving teams that have a legitimate claim out is more of an injustice than putting teams that don't have a legitimate claim in.
  
  And as for Oregon vs. Stanford, leaving out 1 team that has no legitimate claim while including another team that has no legitimate claim seems like less of an issue (still an issue, but a much less important one) with the system than leaving out a team that does have a legitimate claim just to make sure the bastard teams aren't involved either.
• Zombaypirate

  WebFire;1001927 wrote:Also. MSU didn't "crush" Michigan. Maybe teams should consider *winning* their conference game.

  Don't let bias blind you, the cold hard fact is Michigan St is better than Michigan any way you slice it.
  
  Michigan St crushed Michigan 28-14 and it was not that close. It was clear, very clear who is the superior team.
  
  Michigan St and their fans just got screwed. So much for the fallacy you are rewarded for hard work.
• WebFire

  Zombaypirate;1001958 wrote:Don't let bias blind you, the cold hard fact is Michigan St is better than Michigan any way you slice it.
  
  Michigan St crushed Michigan 28-14 and it was not that close. It was clear, very clear who is the superior team.
  
  Michigan St and their fans just got screwed. So much for the fallacy you are rewarded for hard work.

  :rolleyes:
• justincredible

  

  ohiotiger33;1001735 wrote:Both games will be sold out though. Clemson has been waiting for a BCS game for a long time, already have my tix. Plus WVU has a ton of fans. VT always travels well, and Michigan fans will also be happy to be there.

  I'm thinking of getting tickets, not sure if I'm going to be able to swing it though.
• enigmaax

  Mulva;1001956 wrote:Leaving teams that have a legitimate claim out is more of an injustice than putting teams that don't have a legitimate claim in.

  Which is exactly what happens with the two team set-up. It isn't as though Alabama has no case whatsoever, it is just that some people believe Oklahoma State has one too. Why should the discussion be about which non-deserving team amongst Stanford and Oregon should get a shot versus which deserving team should?
• dave

  lmao somebody didn't watch that game.
  
  MSU doesn't travel well and they were a hail mary away from 4 losses. Hardly deserving over anyone.
  
  MSU got a great bowl matchup, should be one of the best bowl games of the year.
• chicago510

  

  WebFire;1001921 wrote:Don't lose 3 games and you go to BCS.
  
  Funny people argue that the whole season is CFB's playoff, yet a bunch are whining about so and so beat so and so, ignoring the rest of the year.

  Lol well when you play one less game against a top 15 team its easier to not lose 3 games. UM and Alabama benefitted by not playing in the champ game.
• dlazz

  justincredible;1001969 wrote:I'm thinking of getting tickets

  Save your money and invest into this website.
• enigmaax

  Mulva;1001956 wrote:Leaving teams that have a legitimate claim out is more of an injustice than putting teams that don't have a legitimate claim in.
  
  And as for Oregon vs. Stanford, leaving out 1 team that has no legitimate claim while including another team that has no legitimate claim seems like less of an issue (still an issue, but a much less important one) with the system than leaving out a team that does have a legitimate claim just to make sure the bastard teams aren't involved either.

  Two different things -
  1) I don't agree that it is better to allow teams nobody thinks deserve a shot in, just to have more teams competing.
  2) If you accept a system that selects those four teams, then you're saying there's no problem with the system's selection of the top two teams. You want more teams, great. But your argument (in this case "your" being the guy who posted how nice the expansion would be, but also said "the system is rigged") about the wrong team being in the top two just went completely out the window.
• justincredible

  

  dlazz;1001986 wrote:Save your money and invest into this website.

  No.
• WebFire

  chicago510;1001979 wrote:Lol well when you play one less game against a top 15 team its easier to not lose 3 games. UM and Alabama benefitted by not playing in the champ game.

  LOL. MSU and Michigan's SOS is almost identical (41 and 42), and that's only because MSU played Wiscy for the B1G title. After 12 games, MSU wasn't that close.
• Mulva

  

  enigmaax;1001971 wrote:Why should the discussion be about which non-deserving team amongst Stanford and Oregon should get a shot versus which deserving team should?

  Because if we're discussing the former, it means that every deserving team got a shot. Which is what should be happening. I really don't give a shit if your undeserving team was less undeserving than another undeserving team. That's like Seth Greenberg crying about Virginia Tech not making the NCAA tournament. If your resume isn't good enough to earn a 12-seed, you need to shut the hell up.
  
  The issue is determining which teams are deserving and what number is appropriate. I don't think 2 teams is enough to do that. I don't think a +1 is the answer either. But that's a different discussion entirely.
• Mulva

  

  enigmaax;1001987 wrote:Two different things -
  1) I don't agree that it is better to allow teams nobody thinks deserve a shot in, just to have more teams competing.

  I don't think I could say for sure that Oklahoma State definitely deserves a shot and Stanford definitely doesn't. The issue to me is determining what number of teams is appropriate. In my opinion it definitely isn't 2.
  
  I'm more interested in crowning a champion than in crowning a "best team". And in my opinion that should be settled on the field. It wouldn't be "just to have more teams competing", it would be to ensure that all teams that could possibly be deserving are included.
  
  I'd personally rather see the "best" team get upset by an "undeserving team" and not win the championship than see the 2 teams that could be the best 2 but there's really no way to know for sure get matched up the way they currently are now.
  
  Again, I don't know the correct number, because you should have to earn your way into the playoffs/championship to be considered at all, but 2 teams just doesn't work. If Stanford would beat LSU and Alabama in back to back weeks to win a championship on the field, then who am I to say they were undeserving of being there in the first place.