BCS Madness

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Janders

Senior Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
1,204
*cough*
Go Gators!
*cough*

Members don't see this ad.
 
I fear the SEC may be left out looking in yet again...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Repulsive is the idea of a rematch of two Big Ten teams in the BCS title game.
 
Repulsive is the idea of a rematch of two Big Ten teams in the BCS title game.

No joke. The voters are absolute *****s. No if's, and's, or but's.
The SEC won't stand for it twice. They will find a way out of it if they can.
 
buckeyes gonna roll on whoever they play anyhow!
 
Screw the BCS if they leave the SEC out again. If you look at the strength of schedule, Florida wins hands down. They played and beat more ranked teams than Michigan.
 
Who cares about the computers, the strength of schedule, the conference.... and all the other BS... Who is the 2nd best team in the country????

If you really think it's Florida... fine. But I think the majority of people realize that the 2nd best team is Michigan. It just so happens that the 1st and 2nd best team in the country are in the same conference this year, and Michigan lost to Ohio State. The fact that there could be a re-match is irrelevant. The BCS is supposed to match up the 2 best teams in the country (regardless of conference, schedule, style....).
 
Subjectively, I think that Michigan is a much better team than Florida after watching both teams play in about 4 games this year. They just look like the 2nd best team in the country.

That said, I think Florida deserves the shot at THE Ohio State University in the championship game because their record and schedule in the SEC is absurdly tough. In the end, I think that this combined with the fact that most pollsters don't want a rematch game will put the Gators in the championship game.

In the end, I don't think it matters because the Buckeyes are scary good and will beat anyone they play.
 
I would argue that Michigain actually has as tough a schedule as Florida, and nearly beat OSU. The rankings make no sense, but everyone can see for themselves that Michigan is the better team. Florida has a bag full of ugly a$$ wins! Michigan dominated the field, including beating Iowa when they were ranked, Wisconsin who ended their Big Ten season 11-1! I seem to remember a little field goal block and a gift from God that allowed Florida to even be in this discussion. That is not a way to earn a BCS bid. The SEC is not the conference it usually is this year. I hope they get left out, as otherwise the Rose Bowl will be about as boring as an average Superbowl.
 
Well, at least we can all agree that we want a playoff system! I disagree that the SEC is especially bad this year. I also think UF had a much tougher schedule than Mich. I'll let an ESPN columnist do the arguing for me:


Full Column at THIS LINK
"So are those voters (fortunately, I'm not one of them). So here are the cold, hard facts when comparing the Gators and Wolverines:

1. Florida beat nine teams that are projected to play in bowl games. Michigan beat six.

2. Michigan beat five teams that finished the season with losing records. Florida beat two teams with sub-.500 records.

3. Florida's 12 Division I-A opponents had a combined record of 89-57. Michigan's 12 opponents had a combined record of 84-61.

4. Michigan's best win is considered a 27-13 victory over Wisconsin on Sept. 23. The Badgers are 11-1 and have climbed to No. 7 in the AP Top 25 poll, despite having played only one ranked opponent -- the Wolverines -- the entire season.

5. The 12 teams Florida defeated finished the season with 11 combined wins against opponents which were ranked in the AP Top 25 poll at the time the game was played. The opponents Michigan defeated claim just three wins against ranked teams (Notre Dame beat Penn State. Indiana beat Iowa. Vanderbilt beat Georgia. The Nittany Lions, Hawkeyes and Bulldogs, it should be noted, haven't been ranked in seven weeks).

6. The Gators went 3-1 against ranked opponents, beating then-No. 13 Tennessee, No. 9 LSU and No. 8 Arkansas and losing at No. 11 Auburn. The Wolverines went 1-1 against ranked opponents, beating a highly overrated No. 2 Notre Dame team (that lost to Michigan and USC by a combined total of 46 points) and losing at No. 1 Ohio State 42-39 on Nov. 18.

7. The Gators' average margin of victory against Division I-A teams was 13.5 points. They won seven games by 14 points or fewer, six by less than 10. The Wolverines' average margin of victory was 17.3 points. They won six games by 14 points or fewer, two by less than 10.

8. The Gators played Western Carolina, a Division I-AA team, and won by 62 points. The Wolverines played Ball State, which should be a I-AA team, and won by eight.

9. Since the Wolverines last played and lost at Ohio State, the Gators won at Florida State (The Seminoles are 6-6, but rivalry games are tough to win. Just ask USC coach Pete Carroll) and then beat the No. 8 Razorbacks, who defeated then-No. 2 Auburn and No. 13 Tennessee by 17 points each.

10. Michigan didn't win the Big Ten; Florida won the SEC. Winning your conference should be a prerequisite for playing in the national championship. "


I've also seen a comparison that shows we have produced more offensive yards/points against tougher defenses, while also holding teams to lower points while playing against better offenses. I'll have to dig up those numbers later.


Also, while I am posting ridiculous comparisons, anyone want to take a look at the new Sagarin Computer Rankings (these are used by the BCS, just came out a bit ago).

Sagarin Top 10:
1 OSU
2 Michigan
3 Florida
4 USC (2 losses to unranked teams!)
5 LSU
6 Boise State
7 Auburn
8 Wisconsin
9 Notre Dame
10 Arkansas

More interesting, check out the Sagarin Computer Strength of Schedule Numbers (which are used by the computer to figure out the top 10 above):
1 Stanford (PAC10)
2 USC (PAC10)
3 UCLA (PAC10)
4 Arizona (PAC10)
5 Washington (PAC10)
6 California (PAC10)
7 Oregon (PAC10)
8 Washington State (PAC10)
9 Arizona State (PAC10)
10 Oregon State (PAC10)
13 Michigan
19 Florida
38 Ohio State

So, um, we're using a computer that thinks the Pac-10 is the toughest conference, by far. I think we can all agree that is silly. Really silly. Laughable.


Bring on the playoffs.
 
I think the only fair thing to do then is to put Boise State in the big game. You can twist the stats all you want, but the truth is, the MAIN stat is the W/L ratio. Florida and Michigan are equal there. Then, the next most important factor is :who did they lose to". If Auburn played OSU, who do you think would win? So in my opinion, the loss by Florida was much more damaging than the loss to the number one team.

Michigan, or Boise State, but not Florida. If we go by the method I described above, even the Badgers deserve to be in the big game ahead of Florida.
 
We all can't agree that a playoff system would be better. I think most people want to see what they believe to be number 1 and 2 play each other. With a play off system the chance of a random loss for a really good team that has one off day is too great. That's why super bowls end up being boring, you aren't seeing the two best teams play one another.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Most people outside of Michigan don't believe that they are the number 2 team. I think that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be eligible for the national championship. Basketball is different because they have a playoff system. Football is not.
Oh, and since Michigan beat Ball State by 8, I think that means, they suck. And what is with Wisconsin being in the top 10? Who have they beaten? Oh yeah, nobody.

Oh, and without the playoff system, then you have that random chance of losing in the regular season and it hurting you. The only reason Michigan is ranked so highly is because they started out ranked highly. Just like when Auburn couldn't break in, even though they beat more 10 win teams than both USC and Oklahoma combined to beat. But they couldn't beat the voters.
Oh, and if you see where most sportswriters live, you will see why the Pac 10 and Big 10 always get more votes. It is ridiculous.
 
Most people outside of Michigan don't believe that they are the number 2 team. I think that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be eligible for the national championship. Basketball is different because they have a playoff system. Football is not.
Oh, and since Michigan beat Ball State by 8, I think that means, they suck. And what is with Wisconsin being in the top 10? Who have they beaten? Oh yeah, nobody.

Oh, and without the playoff system, then you have that random chance of losing in the regular season and it hurting you. The only reason Michigan is ranked so highly is because they started out ranked highly.


1. ALOT of people outside of Michigan (myself included) think Michigan is the 2nd best team. They lost to the clear #1 team in the country by 3 points on the road and won all their other games. That said, I still think Florida should be the team in the title game for reasons stated above.

2. Michigan is ranked highly because they are a good team and they only lost one game. I do agree that pre-season poll position plays way too much into the duqation.


Oh, and since Michigan beat Ball State by 8, I think that means, they suck.

I disagree. What counts is that you win your games. By that logic, Clemson only beat a very bad North Carolina State team by 6....do they suck too? ;)
 
I think that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be eligible for the national championship.

This rule really does need to be added into the equation if we can't evolve into a playoff system or at the very least a +1 bowl game. BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series. If you can't even win your own conference then I have no desire to watch you play in the National Championship game. This little rule would have also avoided the 2003 debacle where everyone in the world knew USC and LSU should be playing for the title and Oklahoma wastes everyone's time in the championship game after losing the Big 12 title to Kansas State.
 
This rule really does need to be added into the equation if we can't evolve into a playoff system or at the very least a +1 bowl game. BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series. If you can't even win your own conference then I have no desire to watch you play in the National Championship game. This little rule would have also avoided the 2003 debacle where everyone in the world knew USC and LSU should be playing for the title and Oklahoma wastes everyone's time in the championship game after losing the Big 12 title to Kansas State.

Not a bad idea, but teams from the Big 10 and Pac 10 have a much easier time winning their conferances because they don't have a conferance championship game to play against another top team at the end of the year. This would also neglect independents, which would be fine with me given that Notre Dame gets an easier path than others to a BCS bowl every year.

If everyone had a championship game it would definitely be fair.

I do like the idea of a "+1 model" if we can't have a playoff.
 
I disagree. What counts is that you win your games. By that logic, Clemson only beat a very bad North Carolina State team by 6....do they suck too? ;)

Yes, over the last 4 games we did suck. But that is irrelevant.
Nobody is arguing that Clemson is or should be number 2. Nobody is saying that due to strength of schedule we had a harder road.

The reason voting should not play a part in college football is simple. It is all emotion. There is no rationale to it. No logic either. Tell me why on multiple occasions two one loss teams existed in the polls, and the team that beat the other was ranked lower. It happened with Auburn/Arkansas, and it happened with Louisville/Rutgers. There were probably others.

Oh, and ND doesn't deserve a shot in the BCS this year, the only reason they get one is because there are 4 million people out there who couldn't pass Comp 101 at ND that root for them, because they are either Catholic, or because their daddy rooted for them, or because it is trendy. No other reason. They should be forced to join either the Big East, in which they play every other sport, or the Big 10.5, whom they play regularly in football and fit better geographically.
 
More interesting, check out the Sagarin Computer Strength of Schedule Numbers (which are used by the computer to figure out the top 10 above):
1 Stanford (PAC10)
2 USC (PAC10)
3 UCLA (PAC10)
4 Arizona (PAC10)
5 Washington (PAC10)
6 California (PAC10)
7 Oregon (PAC10)
8 Washington State (PAC10)
9 Arizona State (PAC10)
10 Oregon State (PAC10)
13 Michigan
19 Florida
38 Ohio State

So, um, we're using a computer that thinks the Pac-10 is the toughest conference, by far. I think we can all agree that is silly. Really silly. Laughable.


Bring on the playoffs.


Laughable? Hardly. First, on a side note, I believe the SEC was a good part of the reason we got into this whole BCS thing, and there will never be a playoff system because that is just silly. Lets just start giving college football players $50,000 jobs to wash cars (Oklahoma) and call it the pros. The fact of the matter is when you play in the toughest conference in the nation, like USC does, losses happen. Just because people in the south have already had their half rack of Natural Ice by the time PAC teams start playing doesn't mean there isn't real football out here. I'm not saying we are going to always have the "best" team in the nation, but we don't have a bunch of weak asses in the conference that turn a game week into a bye week (excepting Stanford, of course, but hey, those guys are real smart).
 
congrats to florida....can't wait to pummel them! but seriously, anybody else think urban meyer has sounded like a 7th grade girl trying to get her parents to let her go on a date with a high school boy over the last couple of weeks?

ps pac-10 is soft
 
Laughable? Hardly. First, on a side note, I believe the SEC was a good part of the reason we got into this whole BCS thing, and there will never be a playoff system because that is just silly. Lets just start giving college football players $50,000 jobs to wash cars (Oklahoma) and call it the pros. The fact of the matter is when you play in the toughest conference in the nation, like USC does, losses happen. Just because people in the south have already had their half rack of Natural Ice by the time PAC teams start playing doesn't mean there isn't real football out here. I'm not saying we are going to always have the "best" team in the nation, but we don't have a bunch of weak asses in the conference that turn a game week into a bye week (excepting Stanford, of course, but hey, those guys are real smart).

Uh, so, the fact that every other college football division plays in a playoff system, as does high school ball, means that they are all pros too?
Remember, Oregon didn't beat Oklahoma, the refs beat Oklahoma.
 
Remember, I consider that Oklahoma game a win for them and I hate Oregon. But never you mind the fact that, refs or not, Oregon played them to the wire and finished tied for fourth in the pac. And although I suppose "technically" you could work out a playoff system, it would mean no bowl games, and the regular season wouldn't be nearly as important.

P.S. USC beats Michigan in the Rose bowl by 10+ points. You heard it here first, UCLA is a tough ball club, and it was a rivalry game, you can throw that one out as far as the big picture is concerned.
 
Go Gators!

And honestly, you think the PAC-10 is the best conference? I'm not saying they are the WAC, but come on.

Seriously though, a playoff system could totally work, and could totally integrate the current bowl system. Its not like we're still play 8 historic bowls on new years day anymore. The championship game is already a week after the Sugar Bowl. If we did a basic 8-team playoff, we could use the "Championship Game," and we'd need 6 more bowls to rotate the 1st and second rounds. Sounds like a great thing for the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Rose Bowls, plus two more. The first round (4 games) could be played on/around new years. the next round (2) games, on Jan 7th/8th. Leaving only one game later than the current schedule. We'd top out regular season schedules @ 12 games (Florida plays 13 now, but 3 are BS games).

This would keep the relevence of the big bowls, and give a couple more bowl cities a big payout. Plus all the other bowls would be just as (ir)relevant as they are now.

Rememer, Div II football manages a playoff system without the earth halting its rotation. We all know that Michigan and Florida both deserve a shot, and who wants to tell an undefeated team that they can't at least have a crack at it (Boise St, utah a couple years ago?). Hell, Notre Dame could make it once every couple years to keep that crowd happy.

Anyway, sorry for the long winded response, but I truly believe a limited playoff system using the top tier of bowls would be incredibly fun to watch, and wouldn't cost any of the bowls or schools money!
 
Yes, over the last 4 games we did suck. But that is irrelevant.
Nobody is arguing that Clemson is or should be number 2. Nobody is saying that due to strength of schedule we had a harder road.

Yo IbnSina....chill out! :)

I was just using that Clemson example to make a point...that beating a lousy team by not alot in one single game doesn't make you a bad team. That's all.

And I'm sorry, there's NO WAY the Pac-10 is the best conferance in the country......
 
Nah Hawk, I wasn't saying anything against you. I was saying we honestly did suck. Starting out 7-1 to finish 8-4 is pretty bad. And the bowls thought so too, demoting us down to the Music City Bowl (6th in the ACC).
But I tend to think that if people rag on Florida for playing a weak team and beating them by a ton, then people should rag on Michigan for playing a weak team and not beating them by much.
And no, the Pac-10 isn't the best conference, not by a long shot. Yes, Oregon played Oklahoma well, in a game that was early in the season with a new quarterback, on the road. Let them play again and see what the score is. I will put money on USC as well, as the Michigan kids think this is a letdown and won't play. And then we will have to put up with them whining.

Oh, and for the record, I don't think they deserved a share of the national championship in 1997 either, because they didn't have to play the other national champion then either.

Another reason I don't like the BCS, what if Michigan and OSU didn't play this year (disregard the rivalry, perennial game aspect for a moment). The Little 11 doesn't guarantee that two teams have to play each other. In theory, two teams could go undefeated in the Little 11. Then people would say that they deserve to play the NC game, instead of forcing them to have a conference championship like other leagues have. The Pac 10 needs one too.
 
I wish they would have let USC play Ohio and pretend that cluster@@@@ last week didn't happen. I was there watching... so pathetic. Bush was so disgusted that he said he wanted to puke and unleash some fury on the 49'ers. Having Gable run the ball for most of the game and Booty not throw drop passes on the blitzes which happened every damn play was just like handing them the win...
 
IbnSina,

Oregon finished tied for fourth in the Pac, Oklahoma finished first in the Big XII, enough said. It's alright though, the teams will speak for themselves in the next month. I am predicting a win for 4 of the 6 teams (and not just because we have been undermatched), at least. The Pac just started playing all other nine teams this year, so there can't be 2 undefeateds. There could be a three way tie of one losses that couldn't be broken by head to heads, but that doesn't happen very often.

So how would we keep the bowls AND sell tickets in the short of a time? Unless games are at home, you can't mobilize an entire fan base three times in three or four weeks. A true +1 game is possible, but that's it.
 
No time for much comment but all I have to say is.... GO GATORS!!!!!
 
1. They play a lot of those games and home, and 2. When is the last time attendence mattered at one of those games? Thats why. Sure it is technically feasible, but really, nobody wants that just so they can crown one champion. People would still complain about that too "we didn't get seeded correctly" and all of the other crap that comes with it.
 
1. They play a lot of those games and home, and 2. When is the last time attendence mattered at one of those games?
Attendance doesn't matter at any game. People go if they want, choosing teams over tickets sold instead of because they deserve to be there is why Notre Dame gets a BCS free ride every year, even though they haven't beaten a ranked team this year, and have lost their last 8 bowls.
Thats why. Sure it is technically feasible, but really, nobody wants that just so they can crown one champion.
Actually, lots of people do. That is why there is a debate. Apparently you don't, and since plural of anecdote is fact, that is what you are going on.
People would still complain about that too "we didn't get seeded correctly" and all of the other crap that comes with it.
Yeah, but when was the last time there was a basketball co-champion? They even added a play in game, and that still doesn't make any difference.
People manage to go to each basketball tournament, and those seats are always sold out. Maybe people like basketball more than football.
 
SEC > Pac10

SEC is 3-1 against Pac10 this season.

Tennessee 35 - Cal 3 entering the 4th quarter
USC 9 - Cal 9 entering the 4th quarter

Auburn 40 - Washington State 14
USC 28 - Washington State 22

LSU 45 - Arizona 3
Arizona 24 - Cal 20
Arizona 27 - Washington State 17

USC 50 - Arkansas 14
Arkansas had a different QB and injured McFadden. It's a different Arkansas team.

Rankings from Coaches Poll:

SEC: #2 UF, #4 LSU, #10 Auburn, #13 Arkansas, #18 Tennessee, #28 Georgia, #31 South Carolina
Pac10: #7 USC, #19 Cal, #25 Oregon State

What about the NFL?

NFL players by college conference. If you do it by players/team (SEC 12 teams, Big Ten 11, Pac10 ten, etc, SEC still 1st).

1. SEC 261
2. ACC 231
3. Big Ten 223
4. Pac-10 188
5. Big 12 176
6. Big East 88
7. Conference USA 71
8. Mountain West 68

Top 10 Schools with Players in the NFL. Notice how much the State of Florida and the South in general produces. Surprise, 3 of the top 5 are SEC.

1. Florida State 42
2. FLORIDA 37
TENNESSEE 37
4. GEORGIA 35

Ohio State 35
6. Michigan 34
7. Miami (Fla.) 33
8. AUBURN 31
9. LSU 30

Notre Dame 30

Okay, so what about high school recruiting? From Rivals.com

2003
1. LSU
2. Florida

3. USC
4. Oklahoma
5. Miami
6. Georgia
7. NC State
8. South Carolina
9. Miss State

10. Texas A&M
11. Auburn

2004
1. USC
2. LSU
3. FSU
4. Miami
5. Michigan
6. Georgia
7. Florida

8. Oklahoma
9. Ohio State
10. Texas
11. Tennessee
12. Oregon

2005
1. USC
2. FSU
3. Oklahoma
4. Tennessee
5. Nebraska
6. Michigan
7. Miami
8. Texas A&M
9. Cal
10. Georgia

2006
1. USC
2. Florida
3. FSU
4. Georgia
5. Texas
6. PSU
7. LSU
8. Notre Dame
9. Oklahoma
10. Auburn
11. Alabama


2007 current, and on-going:
1. Texas
2. Florida
3. Georgia
4. Tennessee
5. Auburn

6. USC
7. LSU
8. Notre Dame
9. Michigan
10. Virginia
11. Ole Miss

So we recruit most of the good players. We send most of the good players to the NFL. So what happens in the middle? We screw ourselves with a bunch of good players. We're on our own island battling it out. SEC > Pac10
 
I forgot to mention our non-conference record.

SEC record: 41-7 (.854)

Big Ten record: 33-12 (.733)

Pac 10 record: 21-9 (.700)
 
I would argue that Michigain actually has as tough a schedule as Florida, and nearly beat OSU. The rankings make no sense, but everyone can see for themselves that Michigan is the better team. Florida has a bag full of ugly a$$ wins! Michigan dominated the field, including beating Iowa when they were ranked, Wisconsin who ended their Big Ten season 11-1! I seem to remember a little field goal block and a gift from God that allowed Florida to even be in this discussion. That is not a way to earn a BCS bid. The SEC is not the conference it usually is this year. I hope they get left out, as otherwise the Rose Bowl will be about as boring as an average Superbowl.

I agree with u that Miiiiichigan is a probably better than UF. But why should a team THAT FAILED TO WIN ITS OWN CONFERENCE HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN IT ALL ? needless to say that they already had their matchup.

So even though this year's game is between #1 and #3, I think it will undoubtedly PRODUCE the national champ. u can't say that about the OSU vs Michigan scenario... there will be alot of controversy if Michigan won.

All that aside: GOOOOOO GAAAAAATORS!
 
Winning with someone else's recruits is like having sex with her using the other guy's equipment.
 
I know no one here will believe me but I picked Florida minus 9 1/2 about a month ago. I was mildly surprised my pick held up. My pick is documented, just not in a way that I can prove on this board!

Boise is not number one. They do make a strong case for a playoff though.

Boomer Sooner.
 
never would've thought we'd **** the bed like that....ouch! gators earned it. congrats (begrudgingly, of course)
 
never would've thought we'd **** the bed like that....ouch! gators earned it. congrats (begrudgingly, of course)

It's not their fault. They just hadn't seen a top notch SEC defense before. Happens to lots of teams:D
 
Winning with someone else's recruits is like having sex with her using the other guy's equipment.

I hate BSU, but that is an unfair statement, he (Chris Peterson) was an in house hire and has been at BSU for the last 5 or 6 years as an offensive coordinator.
 
I hate BSU, but that is an unfair statement, he (Chris Peterson) was an in house hire and has been at BSU for the last 5 or 6 years as an offensive coordinator.


I was referring to Florida; should've clarified that.

And it's all in jest, of course. :D
 
Of course he was referring to FL.. To give Urban Crier his due he had a sicl recruiting class last yr. Tebow, Harvin etc. USC though should win 3 of the next 5 Championships.. then my Canes can get back to where they belong #1!
 
*cough cough*
How bout them gators?!


*still hung over*
 
Top