BCS results - week 1 and beyond

[tasty]

Well the BCS results are out for week one, once again sparring the national debate on their legitimacy.

Here they are: http://espn.go.com/abcsports/bcs/rankings_full/2002-2003.html

I, of course, favor an basketball-style national tournament of say, the top 16 teams. If Oregon had a chance last year, I believe that they would have taken Miami the fuck out, but the BCS once again screwed them in the ass.

This year it looks like Notre Dame will be the team most affected by a the BCS, as it is ranked # 1 in schedule strength, # 1 in 4 of the 7 individual computer rankings, and is undefeated. However, it is ranked 6th by the coaches and AP polls, moving Notre Dame down to the number 3 position. Therefore, unless one of the top two teams loses a game, Notre Dame would be stuck out of the championship even with their #1 schedule strength and perfect record.

In other random news related to college football?
Ace, you said that USC's schedule strength was first in the nation??however according to the BCS, it is 4th.
Also, Iowa is ranked 13th and will move up after pwnerizing Michigan @ Ann Arbor on Saturday.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Notre Dame is a prime example of why the computer rankings don't work well.  Look at the Michigan vs Notre Dame game.  Notre Dame won with some bad calls.  I mean BAD.  A fumble on the two yard line that is called a TD??  Coaches polls see this.  So do sports writers.  Computers don't.  Also, I'm shocked that Florida State didn't get punished more in the polls for it's loss to an unranked team.  Also surprising is that Oregon is still up there.

I too am all for a playoff ala NCAA hoops.  Each of the conference winners (11), plus the next 5 best teams (Including indies).  That would work out fine.  It would also make winning your conference so much more important, and bring back a little of the old days, when it was conference winners that played at bowl games, not just who can draw the biggest crowds.  The month of December could be the tourniment, with the final game on Jan 1 every year.  The bowl games now could have the sites for these playoffs.

As for Iowa beating Michigan this weekend.  Wake up Tastey, wake up.  You be dreaming again.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

i wonder if bondo will come up for some lameass excuse for his pussyfooting basketball team?

_Sk's thoughs

[Bondo]

The reason I thought Air Force might beat Notre Dame was more to do with Notre Dame not being a good team than Air Force being a top 10 team.  Notre Dame will lose at some point, even if they have to get their asses kicked in the Fiesta Bowl like two years ago against Oregon State.

As for the BCS...seeing as CU got screwed over last year (not as bad as Oregon mind you but still) when Nebraska got to the championship game.  I'm all for a 16 team playoff...but I don't think all conferences should have auto-ins, maybe add one or two more (including the Mountain West as it is the best conference without an automatic bid, maybe the MAC as the second one).  Right now there are 6 so maybe make it 8 conferences with automatic bids.  Then have 8 at large, likely should be filled with the losers of conference championships in SEC and Big 12 along with runner ups in the other majors, plus any undefeated or top one loss teams that are in the really small conferences and independants.

SK...what do you mean by my "pusyfooting basketball team", surely you can't be refering to CU as they suck at basketball.  I don't think CU is ripped off not to be in the BCS rankings, they have lost twice so they haven't earned that yet (although I wonder how Florida State made it in).

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

well how did i know he would say that?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

SK...what do you mean by my "pusyfooting basketball team", surely you can't be refering to CU as they suck at basketball.  

Does that actually make sense to anyone?

Bondo, I do think that "pussyfooting" does equate to major suckage.


As for the tourney, why wouldn't you include all 11 conferences?  They are all included in hoops, and yes, I realize that hoops has 64 teams.  But by giving these smaller conferences a bid, they'll get some extra recruiting (TV time, maybe a great upset or three).  Just like a MAC team always makes it to the sweet 16 in hoops (that's money in the bank if you are a betting man.  I have made great coin off that in Vegas.  Don't ask me why, but they like to go to the sweet 16).  They are never seeded high enough to get there, but they always seem to.  So may one of these small football schools.  I know that Marshall would have beat many a Pac 10 school in the past few years, along with many SEC, Big 10, etc.  

[Bondo]

Because unlike the major 6 conferences, the minor conferences don't always have a great team.  Have a type of Notre Dame exception for them.  If the winner of the minor conference goes undefeated (or maybe make it 1 loss) then they can get the auto-bid.  But if there isn't a stand-out team like that, then don't spend the spot on it.

As for pussyfooting meaning bad...the thing is he was talking about the football team being a pussyfooting basketball team seemingly...since this is a thread about football.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

In other words, you just don't read that carefully?  He said basketball.

As for not all the conferences, that's just asking for problems later.  You'll get an undefeated team like Marshall a few years ago, that was ranked 21st before the bowl game.  They won that big too, and ended up 15th or 17th (still ripped off).  If the conference winners don't all make it, smaller teams that  go undefeated could not make the cut for the next spots.  That wouldn't be fair at all.

Having conference champs go would make all the conferences better in the long run.  And probably make for better games.

[Bondo]

And you don't read carefully, I said if they make it  through the season undefeated or even with one loss, then the conference winner would be automaticly in.  Just like Notre Dame has a way of automatically getting in despite being Independant.  I just don't want a team with a losing record making it in because they won the conference which is something that happened in the Bowl games last year.

As for him saying basketball, I thought he was calling the CU football team a basketball team...this is SK we are talking about, I choose an odd interpretation because I figured it was most likely to be correct.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Notre Dame gets into a BCS game by winning 9 games and finishing in the top 6 in rankings.

A playoff system wouldn't work because the players would break down from playing way too many games.

3-4 preseason games
13 regular season games
4 potential postseason games

That is 20-21 potential games for players to play.

That is a lot to ask of any player of Football.

[Bondo]

What colleges play pre-season games other than those opening of the season special games that sometimes aren't counted by the BCS?

[Deadeye]

I said if they make it  through the season undefeated or even with one loss, then the conference winner would be automaticly in.  I just don't want a team with a losing record making it in because they won the conference which is something that happened in the Bowl games last year.

bondo, how can a team win a conference and have a losing record?  which team are you talking about that won it's conference and had a losing record?

this is exactly the reason that you want the conference champs in there.  if someone is playing in the toughest damn conference, and gets a loss or two, you still want them in there.  you can't tell me that the champ can't come out of any of the 11 conferences, or an indipendant.  you can't make a rule like any teams with one loss, because you may have too many that way.  or you could have 3 or 4 weaker teams come in because of soft schedules, that didn't even win their conference.

things would be much better off if all 11 conferences got their representation, then the next 5 in rank (and let a comittee decide like with basketball).  

sin, most of these schools would already be playing one of those post season games.  half of them would still only play one of them.  only two teams would play 4 games.  i don't think that 17 games a season is too much to ask for the best two teams in the country.  they could always drop back to 12 games for the regular season if it is.  (we also have to take into account one more game for some conferences that have conference championship games).  but, like he said, college doesn't really play preseason.

[Bondo]

Last year North Texas won the Sun Belt Division with something like a 5-7 record (couldn't find a history type thing at ESPN.com but I remember them talking about them being the first team with a losing record in a bowl game).  As a conference champ they had an acceptance into whatever unimportant bowl where they lost pretty significantly to another team that wouldn't deserve the spot (actually I think CSU played in that game).  But anyways, just because a team wins their conference doesn't mean they deserve to automatically go to the playoff IMO.  The big 6 always have one or two top teams because you don't win those conferences without it, but for other teams, it should be ensured that they don't suck or they'll be like my High School football team always was, they'd lose out of conference games, win enough conference games to secure a playoff spot, and lose 56-0 in the first round.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Last year North Texas won the Sun Belt Division with something like a 5-7 record (couldn't find a history type thing at ESPN.com but I remember them talking about them being the first team with a losing record in a bowl game).  

Actually, it had been the first in 31 years.  William & Mary had a 5-6 record in 1970 and made a bowl game.  Since W&M isn't in one of the 11 conferences, and didn't get into a bowl that way, they don't really count for this example.

I think you are missing the signifigance of the first time, or the first time in 30 years Bondo.  If it only happens once in every 30 years, so what.  By not giving all conferences an automatic bid, you are discriminating against conferences with less money.  You would be effectivly eliminating those schools from many recruiting, TV, and just general publicity oppertunities.  Without having all conference winners go, you still have a flawed system.  There could be a BYU or Marshall that isn't high enough in the rankings under any other system, but would go since they won their conference.  And since they aren't given the chance to play these other teams, we'll never know who would win.

[Bondo]

But you see, BYU of last year, Marshall of a number of years, Tulane of a few years back...they either went undefeated or had one loss so they would get the automatic bid.  Fresno ended up losing twice I believe so they wouldn't have...ok so maybe you let up to two losses.  How about instead of just focusing on the small conferences you make it a rule for all conferences that the conference champion only makes it automatically if they have no more than one loss.  If they have two or more they will have to get in based on a BCS like ranking of strength of schedule and quality wins and such.  I don't see why setting up a system where conference champions have to be decent to be garenteed is such a bad thing.

[tasty]

to those that think it would be too taxing on the players to add four games to the end of the season, i believe it would just be easier if they limited nonconference play at the beginning of the year. they could play maybe one or two nonconference games, their requisite 8 conference games, and then the end of the season games would just be undecided nonconference "playoff games", the matchups of which would be determined after conference play was over. that way, the teams would still play approximately 13 games, its just that the top 16 (however this is determined) would play each other "tournament style" for the last 4 games of the season to determine the final champion and the final rankings. the teams that didnt qualify for the 16 team tourny can be matched up according to skill too and finish out their seasons, they just wouldnt be part of the tournament. i think that this would be the best way to solve these "who is better?" conflicts once and for all??after all, if you cant get 16 teams decided from full conference play and maybe one or two crucial nonconference matchups, then obviously the poll/computer system is so flawed and inaccurate that it wouldnt be able to determine a real champion anyway.

so in other words, i just dont buy it when experts say that a tournament isnt feasible. they arent saying what they mean- which is that the greedy fucking colleges love the bowl program because they get paid big money for participating in it. yes, it all comes down to the flaws of the capitalist system. schools, the companies that sponsor the bowls, and the TV networks that are owned by these companies will likely not show any strong support for a different system, because they are more interested in the money they might lose than the fairness that the players and the fans would gain.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

I think if the BCS worked Oregon would be in the Rose Bowl last year and I think there should be a more  clear cut way to determine a winner, maybe a semifinals, finals type deal

[Bondo]

Well, the easy argument to those who say a playoff wouldn't work because it is too many games is...but they have football playoffs in Divisions II and III just fine without worrying about that.  It can be done obviously.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

But you see, BYU of last year, Marshall of a number of years, Tulane of a few years back...they either went undefeated or had one loss so they would get the automatic bid.  

Except for conference titles, there can't be automatic bids.  If Marshall wasn't ranked in the top 16, which they weren't, why would their bid have been "automatic"?  If the others are up to a comittee (which would be the only fair way), wouldn't they do it by rank?  

In your way Bondo, conferences don't mean shit.  Why should we have them?

[Ace]

Ace, you said that USC's schedule strength was first in the nation? however according to the BCS, it is 4th.

Well, I just wanted to point out that in the current BCS rankings we have the toughest schedule in the nation. Of course, this fluctuates weekly so next week we could be back down around 5 or still be at the top. Suffice it to say we have a damn tough schedule.

As for the new rankings, you better watch out Tasty because we are breathing down Iowa's neck. As much as I hate to say this, I'm kinda rooting for Colorado to get in the BCS top 10 to give us some points for beating them.

As far as the mess at the top goes, I really hope that at least 3 teams end the year undefeated, hopefully more. That way we can have ourselves a big ass controversy and be one step closer to a playoff system.