Voters already trying to push OSU into title game. OSU jumps over Stanford
-
lhslep134
I would assume it's something the coaches look at when voting in their poll, as well as the possibility that some computer rankings use it too. Both factor into BCS rankings.dwccrew;989424 wrote:I am not aware that a "better" loss factors into BCS rankings. Does that factor in? I genuinely don't know. -
Skyhook79
Probally same way LSU jumped from 7 to 2 in the last week in 2007-08 didn't see you QQ about that.cats gone wild;989183 wrote:I still dont know how they jumped Stanford who won vs a ranked team, while OSU had an off week. Just shows what the voters are trying to do. -
WebFire
Which is why the BCS sucks to begin with.dwccrew;989418 wrote:The difference is that pro sports have a tournament format, the BCS is not a tournament format. Other teams would be able to knock the Bears off in the NFL, the Bears wouldn't just beat the Packers and be crowned champs, they'd have to play other games. -
Azubuike24
It doesn't, but it SHOULD reflect when people are ranking teams with an identical record. Which is why I can't see the justification for OSU over Bama when just about every number favors the Crimson Tide.dwccrew;989424 wrote:I am not aware that a "better" loss factors into BCS rankings. Does that factor in? I genuinely don't know. -
sleeper
Link?lhslep134;989119 wrote:But Alabama is clearly the 2nd best team in the country. In 2006, it was debatable if Florida or Michigan was better. I don't think you can make an argument that any remaining team is better than Alabama. -
lhslep134
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/14sleeper;989587 wrote:Link?
Look at the massive vote differential between numbers 2 and 3. Clearly #2 by a large margin (in fact, they were a unanimous #2, I don't know how you can get more clear than that).
Can you provide a link that they're not clearly the #2 team?
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/11/its_unanimous_again_lsu_and_al.html
Nice try there sleeper. -
sleeper
Wisconsin is the best team in the country. They play in a conference where you have to get by other teams beside Bama to go undefeated. We already kno LSU is better than Bama, placing them in the title game is a farce and a sham.lhslep134;989619 wrote:http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/14
Look at the massive vote differential between numbers 2 and 3.
Can you provide a link that they're not clearly the #2 team? -
WebFire
Putting Wiscy in the title game would be a farce of all farces. Go troll elsewhere.sleeper;989647 wrote:Wisconsin is the best team in the country. They play in a conference where you have to get by other teams beside Bama to go undefeated. We already kno LSU is better than Bama, placing them in the title game is a farce and a sham. -
sleeper
Wisconsin would beat LSU by 14+, book it.WebFire;989680 wrote:Putting Wiscy in the title game would be a farce of all farces. Go troll elsewhere. -
WebFire
I won't book it because the game won't happen.sleeper;989682 wrote:Wisconsin would beat LSU by 14+, book it. -
enigmaax
Wasn't really the same at all, considering they played and won to jump over two teams that lost, another team that they'd already beaten by 34 points, and two teams that didn't win their conference (one of whom was in LSU's conference, one of which had barely beaten a winning team all season).Skyhook79;989505 wrote:Probally same way LSU jumped from 7 to 2 in the last week in 2007-08 didn't see you QQ about that. -
Skyhook79
So not winning your conference eliminates you? What about LSU jumping USC who won their conference in 2007?enigmaax;989712 wrote:Wasn't really the same at all, considering they played and won to jump over two teams that lost, another team that they'd already beaten by 34 points, and two teams that didn't win their conference (one of whom was in LSU's conference, one of which had barely beaten a winning team all season). -
Azubuike24
I think it's pretty clear that in this season, the BCS failed miserably. Any way you would have let things play out, it would have been a debate. I assume you're talking about 2003...Skyhook79;989732 wrote:So not winning your conference eliminates you? What about LSU jumping USC who won their conference in 2007? -
sportswizuhrd
So Texas Tech is better than Oklahoma and Iowa State is better than Oklahoma State? Or were they just better for one game?dwccrew;989461 wrote:We know who the better team is between these teams because they have faced each other.
Hypothetical....Alabama has 2 losses and they are out of the picture. Oregon beat USC. OSU still loses to Iowa State and beats Oklahoma and the Big 12 title. We have LSU at 1, Oregon at 2 and OSU at 3. Who plays LSU in the NCG? The Cowboys because we know LSU is better than Oregon already or Oregon because since that loss to LSU they have won out and have the PAC-12 title too and are rewarded for losing early in the season and bouncing back? I just thought of this on the fly but I think I would give it to Oregon. -
sleeper
That's a shame. We need a playoff to stop the annual SEC slurping that goes on around here.WebFire;989697 wrote:I won't book it because the game won't happen. -
sportswizuhrd
100% agree with this portion of your post.dwccrew;989461 wrote: I am a big advocate of a playoff in college football, we then wouldn't have to worry about placing teams in a championship, they could earn it by winning in a tournament format. -
enigmaax
They didn't jump USC. USC was #8 the week LSU was #7. Also, Oklahoma jumped from #9 to #4 after winning the Big XII title game. The Sooners did jump USC as well as every other team that LSU did, except for Va Tech. Va Tech (who, incidentally, also jumped Georgia and Kansas) was the team LSU had beaten by 34 already.Skyhook79;989732 wrote:So not winning your conference eliminates you? What about LSU jumping USC who won their conference in 2007?
So, is your argument that Oklahoma should've jumped two more teams or that USC should've jumped five teams or that Georgia should've gone to the title game without playing LSU (the SEC champ) or Kansas who lost to Missouri, who lost twice to Oklahoma? Or that the thrashing LSU put on Va Tech should've just been ignored? -
2kool4skool
I'd actually prefer Houston got a chance to play for the title. At least they went undefeated and didn't "get their chance," already.
When the deciding factor for who gets a chance to play for your sport's championship is a formula that a computer spits out, it's difficult for me to take said sport seriously.
Never has such a large % of people hated something in sports, and it hasn't been changed. I've never met anyone IRL who likes the BCS, and I can't imagine I would want to. -
Skyhook79
My argument has been and always has been that the BCS is a sham.enigmaax;989783 wrote:They didn't jump USC. USC was #8 the week LSU was #7. Also, Oklahoma jumped from #9 to #4 after winning the Big XII title game. The Sooners did jump USC as well as every other team that LSU did, except for Va Tech. Va Tech (who, incidentally, also jumped Georgia and Kansas) was the team LSU had beaten by 34 already.
So, is your argument that Oklahoma should've jumped two more teams or that USC should've jumped five teams or that Georgia should've gone to the title game without playing LSU (the SEC champ) or Kansas who lost to Missouri, who lost twice to Oklahoma? Or that the thrashing LSU put on Va Tech should've just been ignored? -
enigmaax
Great, that argument isn't getting you anywhere. By the end of every season, the BCS works out pretty well considering the premium there is on winning games. The teams with the best overall resumes have virtually always gotten into the championship game. It is a pretty simple task in determining that most of the time, despite all the attempts to isolate one game here and there and act like it blows the whole system out of the water.Skyhook79;989788 wrote:My argument has been and always has been that the BCS is a sham. -
lhslep134
enigmaax;989796 wrote:Great, that argument isn't getting you anywhere. By the end of every season, the BCS works out pretty well considering the premium there is on winning games. The teams with the best overall resumes have virtually always gotten into the championship game. It is a pretty simple task in determining that most of the time, despite all the attempts to isolate one game here and there and act like it blows the whole system out of the water.
To add to this, people forget that, for all its supposed inadequacies, the BCS is light years better than it's predecessor, the poll champion predicated on bowl games that don't necessarily match up the best teams. -
cats gone wildenigmaax;989783 wrote:They didn't jump USC. USC was #8 the week LSU was #7. Also, Oklahoma jumped from #9 to #4 after winning the Big XII title game. The Sooners did jump USC as well as every other team that LSU did, except for Va Tech. Va Tech (who, incidentally, also jumped Georgia and Kansas) was the team LSU had beaten by 34 already.
So, is your argument that Oklahoma should've jumped two more teams or that USC should've jumped five teams or that Georgia should've gone to the title game without playing LSU (the SEC champ) or Kansas who lost to Missouri, who lost twice to Oklahoma? Or that the thrashing LSU put on Va Tech should've just been ignored?
-
lhslep134
I love the BCS compared to the system in place before it, I (and I assume almost everyone else) just prefer a playoff to the BCS.2kool4skool;989786 wrote:I've never met anyone who likes the BCS
However, both the BCS and a playoff are superior to the poll champion. -
Skyhook79
Thats your opinion and I have mine and the BCS system is not the best College Football can do to determine its Champion. All the other Divisions in College Football get it right, they settle it on the field in a playoff, except the one that really matters. Name 1 other sport that uses computers and formula's the BCS does to determine who gets in a Championship game?enigmaax;989796 wrote:Great, that argument isn't getting you anywhere. By the end of every season, the BCS works out pretty well considering the premium there is on winning games. The teams with the best overall resumes have virtually always gotten into the championship game. It is a pretty simple task in determining that most of the time, despite all the attempts to isolate one game here and there and act like it blows the whole system out of the water. -
Azubuike24
Exactly. The system isn't perfect. It could be better. But it's not like those in this argument are actually saying the BCS is the best and should stay. However, it is better than what we had before. Far better. That's really all we can compare it to.2kool4skool;989786 wrote:I'd actually prefer Houston got a chance to play for the title. At least they went undefeated and didn't "get their chance," already.
When the deciding factor for who gets a chance to play for your sport's championship is a formula that a computer spits out, it's difficult for me to take said sport seriously.
Never has such a large % of people hated something in sports, and it hasn't been changed. I've never met anyone IRL who likes the BCS, and I can't imagine I would want to.
