Bcs - wtf 2011

ninjavanish · 12-05-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Unfortunately the BS is motivated by money, as is all of college sports. There is a reason that the 'not-for-profit' NCAA is a billion Billion BILLION dollar business. And it isn't for rational thought, its by creating whatever game(s) will generate the most revenue.

Quote:

Of Course it is swayed by money. I think however, you'd be fooling yourself to believe that the big push for a playoff system isn't primarily fueld by the big sports media... and money there. More games = more money for ESPN/CBS etc. You'd run into the same situation. Instead of controversy surrounding a single game, you'd have it around 4 or more. Say you have an 8 team playoff system and the 8th and 9th and 10th teams have the same record... who gets in and who gets left out? You're not fixing the problem only pushing it down the line.

Things the BS got wrong in my opinion:

Michigan, although its good for the college football landscape when they are relevant, shouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl. Money definitely motivated that, Michigan may travel better than any other college football team.

Quote:

I feel you on this. Michigan... I still remember your loss at home to Appalachian State. As soon as that memory fades a little more we will get back to you.

Boise St. getting jobbed, again. What do they have to do to not be considered a mid-major every season? Any school from an AQ who played their non-conference schedule (see: Big East) and finished with one loss would make the BCS.

Quote:

Meh, Boise can do whatever they want, until they take at least some action in an effort to really legitimize their regular season schedules, they will continue to get snubbed from the big dance. It's just my perception (whether right or wrong I don't know) but they seem to be content just playing the same or similar schedules year in and year out and then getting upset over said "jobbing". I find it annoying. I would (And I think many others would) pay them more respect if they made an effort to do something about it on the field during the regular season.

National Championship Game is a rematch of 'The Game of the Century' aka 'Snoozefest Part I' aka 'Alabama's Quest for a Kicker' aka 'Three and Out'. LSU defeated Alabama in Tuscaloosa, then had to essentially go undefeated the remainder of the season including playing in the SEC Championship game, while Alabama benefited from losing the game.

Oklahoma State defeated five top 25 opponents, Alabama defeated 2. But the SEC is the 'most dominant' conference in the country. The media gets to hype a matchup that less than half the country wants to see, I think we all saw...........

. Oh, sorry, I fell asleep thinking about that first game.

Quote:

I think you stray from the distinction of the BCS Game. The BCS Title Game is not intended to be an exciting or unexciting game. (Although we all hope deep down that it will be unbelieveably amazing) Its sole function is to determine and crown a champion. Regardless of who is playing, whether the score is 6-3 or 70-63, how exciting the match-up seems to anyone is irrelevant. If the purpose of taking the selected two teams against each other for the trophy is served, then the purpose of the BCS is served. If the purpose of the BCS Title game was to be the most exciting game on television then why not simply pick the two teams with the most touchdowns and disregard all other information?

That doesn't include West Virginia and Clemson getting bids more based on previous bowl tie-ins than current BCS structure.

Quote:

I think I left this out of the quote from above, Oh well, not going back now.

At this point, they might as well return to the previous structure given that higher ranked teams in the BS are only allowed to play if they:
A. Travel well
B. Create ideal matchups
C. Bring revenue
D. Media can hype

The whole system is a joke, every year there is contoversy. I don't know what the perfect structure is, but the current one isn't correct.

See above in red. Just some thoughts.

rizzle · 12-05-2011, 12:02 PM

Just a couple of points, if it matters, which it doesn't.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS at all. As to the money part of it, that's absolutely why. School presidents are smart enough to know that to turn the "championship" over to the NCAA in tournament style, like with basketball, would mean giving up their negotiating rights, and in turn their power, and in turn the money. Who wants the NCAA meddling in their business any more than they already do?
If they can ever figure out a way to do a playoff and keep the NCAA out of it, you'll see it happen. Until then, we have what we have. It isn't perfect, never has been and never will be. But it is designed to match the two best teams in a game to crown the national champion. They appear to have gotten that right this year. The other BCS bowls are just fluff, and have done nothing more than to dilute the value of the other bowls.

It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.

E.J. · 12-05-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizzle

It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.

In your opinion the two best teams.... I don't agree with that....and it certainly isn't "hands down." Is Alabama a great team, yes...but they are not the only great team out there.

We have discussed the OSU/Alabama wins vs the BCS top 25 and top ten, bla...bla..bla... Let's go deeper into the opponents, teams that actually win games.

Alabama beat a grand total of 4 teams with a record better than .500. So they have 11 wins, but of those 11 opponents, 4 have won more than half their games. So 36% of the teams they beat, finished the season with a winning record.

Oklahoma State beat 7 teams with a record better than .500. So 64% of their wins are against teams that are winning more than half their games.

Let's be clear.... Alabama had their chance and didn't take advantage of that at their own house. Time to open that door, that has been shut by the voters, for a deserving team to get a shot at that MONSTER of a team, LSU.

rizzle · 12-05-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.J.

In your opinion the two best teams.... I don't agree with that....and it certainly isn't "hands down." Is Alabama a great team, yes...but they are not the only great team out there.

We have discussed the OSU/Alabama wins vs the BCS top 25 and top ten, bla...bla..bla... Let's go deeper into the opponents, teams that actually win games.

Alabama beat a grand total of 4 teams with a record better than .500. So they have 11 wins, but of those 11 opponents, 4 have won more than half their games. So 36% of the teams they beat, finished the season with a winning record.

Oklahoma State beat 7 teams with a record better than .500. So 64% of their wins are against teams that are winning more than half their games.

Let's be clear.... Alabama had their chance and didn't take advantage of that at their own house. Time to open that door, that has been shut by the voters, for a deserving team to get a shot at that MONSTER of a team, LSU.

Who do you think is better than Alabama or LSU?

We opened the door by losing. Evidently nobody wanted to come in. Just win, right?

E.J. · 12-05-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizzle

Who do you think is better than Alabama or LSU?

We opened the door by losing. Evidently nobody wanted to come in. Just win, right?

I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?

Yes, apparently be a great team, in a great conference and "just win" against a bunch of .500/sub .500 teams....

OLS · 12-05-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.J.

I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?

I have argued this til they are blue in the face from ignoring me, lol.

rizzle · 12-05-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLS

I have argued this til they are blue in the face from ignoring me, lol.

Your being far from truthful. But don't grafitti up this thread, too. If you've got a problem with it and want to discuss it, I'm way more than willing to take it to PM, since you seem to have a huge freaking problem with it.

rizzle · 12-05-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.J.

I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?

Yes, apparently be a great team, in a great conference and "just win" against a bunch of .500/sub .500 teams....

That's not what I asked you. And I do happen to still believe we are the better team, but that's a different argument all together.

And I acknowledged our loss. Had we have won that game, you're still probably looking at an Alabama - LSU championship game. Why? Because everybody else that had a clear path failed. All OK St had to do was beat a lowly 6-6 team and they were in. Done deal. Stanford got beat by Oregon who then proceeded to get beat by USC.

So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?

357 · 12-05-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.J.

I agree.....it is what I said...

Sorry, I was agreeing with you. I just forgot to include that part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizzle

So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?

I would argue Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. You can argue the strength of the teams that beat them, but the fact is we KNOW LSU is better than Alabama. We don't know if LSU is better than OK State; and that's the point.

We'll never know thanks to the BCS.

Think about this from the other side. If Alabama won, would you think it fair that LSU would get to play them again? Why should you have to beat one team twice and the winner of the SECOND game is the only one that counts?

E.J. · 12-05-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizzle

So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?

You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I don't know who is better. I know they played....and one team won and one team lost and that is that....

I could not care less if the masses would say the better team didn't win the game....who cares? They played the game and there was a winner and a loser, you move on from there.

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - LSU > Alabama

12-05-2011, 12:02 PM	#2
rizzle Order Restored Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: st pete, fl Posts: 2,679 Trading: (23)	Re: Bcs - wtf 2011 Just a couple of points, if it matters, which it doesn't. The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS at all. As to the money part of it, that's absolutely why. School presidents are smart enough to know that to turn the "championship" over to the NCAA in tournament style, like with basketball, would mean giving up their negotiating rights, and in turn their power, and in turn the money. Who wants the NCAA meddling in their business any more than they already do? If they can ever figure out a way to do a playoff and keep the NCAA out of it, you'll see it happen. Until then, we have what we have. It isn't perfect, never has been and never will be. But it is designed to match the two best teams in a game to crown the national champion. They appear to have gotten that right this year. The other BCS bowls are just fluff, and have done nothing more than to dilute the value of the other bowls. It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode