dew1679666265

I'm not saying the qualityof the team changed. Just that they played below their best - hence UCLA outplaying them. Then youve missed my point. Ws and Ls dont judge a team in football any better than they do in baseball. The difference between 11-2 and 12-1 in football is probably the difference between a 30-25 and a 27-28 record in baseball. In the end that one loss is meaningless when it comes to figuring out who is better. After 55 games in a baseball season are you willing to accept the notion that a team 3 games up on another is better? Except in this scenario (USC v UCLA) we're comparing a 2-loss team to a 6-loss team. Bigger difference. That's beside the point, though. Both of us agree USC is the better team in comparison to UCLA regardless of their wins and losses. What I'm saying is that because USC is better, they had to play below their best to lose to UCLA - thus not playing up to their talent level.

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS. in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky. True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have.

I'm not saying the qualityof the team changed. Just that they played below their best - hence UCLA outplaying them.

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

Yeah, it does. It doesn't change the fact that they were the most talented. They just didn't use that talent as well as other teams did. It doesn't even mean that. How do you explain them losing to two inferior teams then? You said USC was the best team last year, so how did they lose to Oregon State and UCLA without not maximizing their talent?

Yeah, it does. It doesn't change the fact that they were the most talented. They just didn't use that talent as well as other teams did.

Don't worry. It'd open up a spot for Nick Saban to come back. He'll be pretty close to time to switch jobs after this season anyway. :wink: I'm sure he'll take some of the credit if they win the NC this year. Of course. His ego would force him to. he'll take credit if the Dolphins make the playoffs too :lol: Hilarious, but true.

Don't worry. It'd open up a spot for Nick Saban to come back. He'll be pretty close to time to switch jobs after this season anyway. :wink: I'm sure he'll take some of the credit if they win the NC this year. Of course. His ego would force him to.

Don't worry. It'd open up a spot for Nick Saban to come back. He'll be pretty close to time to switch jobs after this season anyway. :wink:

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power. Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective. And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument. That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias. You are right, it is more specific teams than regions as the favoritism due to past performance and history but if you notice, their ain't no bias towards any eastern schools, positive that is. We might pop ahead of a surprise Big 10 team that is doing well when not predicted to do so but that's about it. What do you mean by eastern exactly? Miami had plenty of favoritism shown when it was in the Big East, and still it gets plenty of benefit of the doubt. It's also an eastern located school. Virginia Tech is also in the east and gets plenty of play in the media. Most isn't undeserved, but they certainly get the nod when there's some question. If you're talking about the northeast specifically, then yeah, they aren't given much benefit of the doubt. But, outside of Rutgers, there aren't any truly good teams in the northeast I can think of. You've got Buffalo, Syracuse, Rhode Island, Pitt, Connecticut, BC (who should get more credit), etc. up there. The rest of the Big East teams are South Florida (south), Cincinnatti (midwest) and Louisville (technically Kentucky's the south). The eastern teams who have a positive tradition (Miami, Va Tech) get as much favoritism as the midwest teams with history. Problem is, most of your truly eastern teams are Wake Forest, BC, UNC, NC State, etc. that haven't been very good and with a couple exceptions (Wake and BC) still aren't yet. I'll give you that BC definitely should get more publicity, but Wake and Rutgers have competed seriously for their conference once. That's it. It's almost purely a team bias. It's too spread out to be anything else.

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power. Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective. And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument. That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias. I'd agree with you in that the bias is likely for certain teams. I'd say the only conference that gets a bias would probably be the SEC but it's usually only a team or two within the conference that is actually overrated on any given year. That I agree with. There is definitely a team by team bias. I've never really seen a complete conference bias. When's the last time Illinois, Kentucky or Vandy were overrated for instance?

There are some proposals out there for a playoff format that actually plays the bowls as playoff games. For instance, Tennessee could play Michigan in the Citrus Bowl for the right to head to the Rose Bowl and play USC. The games would be at bowl sites and could actually make the smaller bowls (Music City, Motor City, etc) much more popular because they would have some national relevance.

Our small minds can't grasp the magnitude of the matchup. :D

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power. Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective. And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument. That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias.

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship. There are 8-4 teams and worse getting into bowls all the time. They even get into BCS bowls on occasion. Chances are those teams will get eliminated early and the real teams will move on. If they win the National Championship, then they'll have earned the right by beating a number of 0-1 loss teams. I want the most deserving team to win the title, not the team that a bunch of people who don't even watch all the games think is the best.

Let's say the 6 BCS conference winners go. 2 spots left. Not a chance in horse hockey would the BE get one of the 2 remaining spots. That gives the SEC, Big 10 or 12 another team. Last year a 10-2 Rutgers or WV wouldn't have been seriously considered. The last 2 would have been either Michigan, Texas or LSU. Why, they travel. What does travel mean? Big money. GOB's like big money as does any businessman. It's rigged brother, trust me. That's just part of it. Who makes the decisions? It sure isn't anyone from out this way. Where are the bowls? Not here. Yes, they are not in the midwest either but the Big 10 has a heck of a lot of power when it comes to collegian football decisions. Just look at the Rose Bowl and how they won't give that deal up. It's tradition and a heck of a lot of money....and power. All bias aside, if there was a playoff last year LSU likely would've won it. Travel or not, they were deserving. We'll never know. But, the only teams that beat the top 3 BE were in the BE and until they are beat what makes LSU better? LSU was talented yes but that perception is always in their and teams like them favor. It always is...always. What big time teams did those three top BE teams even play? Also, Florida didn't lose to anybody outside the SEC. What makes them any less deserving? Bias often goes two ways my friend. You look in the past 40 years on how many eastern teams with the same record as a SEC, Big 10 or 12 team and finished #1 ahead of them. I can count them on my closed fist but look how many of those teams finished ahead of a team with a better record (1 loss or less) from the east and you won't have enough fingers or toes. Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll): 2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6 Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8 2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3 2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3 Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6 2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3 2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6 USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10 I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

Let's say the 6 BCS conference winners go. 2 spots left. Not a chance in horse hockey would the BE get one of the 2 remaining spots. That gives the SEC, Big 10 or 12 another team. Last year a 10-2 Rutgers or WV wouldn't have been seriously considered. The last 2 would have been either Michigan, Texas or LSU. Why, they travel. What does travel mean? Big money. GOB's like big money as does any businessman. It's rigged brother, trust me. That's just part of it. Who makes the decisions? It sure isn't anyone from out this way. Where are the bowls? Not here. Yes, they are not in the midwest either but the Big 10 has a heck of a lot of power when it comes to collegian football decisions. Just look at the Rose Bowl and how they won't give that deal up. It's tradition and a heck of a lot of money....and power. I realize the current system is based off of how much profit the college presidents can rack up - that's why there's no chance of a playoff system. But again, if there were a true playoff system, you would not rely on polls. Therefore, you would have teams earning their way into the playoffs, not making it in because some coaches and sportswriters - the vast majority of whom watch a very small number of games - think you're the best. Now I realize eliminating polls and creating a playoff system is extremely idealistic and, like I've said, has no chance of happening, but I argue eliminating any type of bias while you still rely 100% on opinions, is just as idealistic and unlikely to happen. How do you pick the 7th or 8th team? What do you do with a Boise St or Utah and this year maybe Hawaii? A playoff system doesn't have to be eight teams. It could be four, eight, 12, 16, or more. And there are multiple different ideas that have been brought up for choosing teams all the way from a college basketball-esque selection committee to every conference's division winner goes and gets a home game and the second place team in each goes in as a wild card of sorts. Athlon had the best idea I've seen for a playoff system 2 years ago. I'll try to find the magazine because I can't remember exactly how they set it up, but it's definitely doable. Athlon's playoff had 32 teams, but could easily have been cut to 16 and it kept together the current bowls (playoff games were based in current bowl sites). I've seen that but I don't remember the exact details. One of the things about college football that I love is the 1 and out type of thing that goes on now. I love that every week matters but the creampuff schedule thing just makes the playoff more appealing. It's all semantics at times when we debate what is a creampuff and what's not as jman and I had earlier. As you wrote, the league winner but that sometimes causes a problem due to playoffs (7-5 team wins Championship) and certain years the Big 10 (due to top teams not playing each other). Just like in any playoff system, mediocre teams will make it sometimes. They'll just also get trashed early if they really are mediocre though. That's the way every playoff is, some great teams get bumped early and some mediocre teams going further than they should. At least they get a fair shot, though, which doesn't happen a lot of the time in the current system.

Let's say the 6 BCS conference winners go. 2 spots left. Not a chance in horse hockey would the BE get one of the 2 remaining spots. That gives the SEC, Big 10 or 12 another team. Last year a 10-2 Rutgers or WV wouldn't have been seriously considered. The last 2 would have been either Michigan, Texas or LSU. Why, they travel. What does travel mean? Big money. GOB's like big money as does any businessman. It's rigged brother, trust me. That's just part of it. Who makes the decisions? It sure isn't anyone from out this way. Where are the bowls? Not here. Yes, they are not in the midwest either but the Big 10 has a heck of a lot of power when it comes to collegian football decisions. Just look at the Rose Bowl and how they won't give that deal up. It's tradition and a heck of a lot of money....and power. I realize the current system is based off of how much profit the college presidents can rack up - that's why there's no chance of a playoff system. But again, if there were a true playoff system, you would not rely on polls. Therefore, you would have teams earning their way into the playoffs, not making it in because some coaches and sportswriters - the vast majority of whom watch a very small number of games - think you're the best. Now I realize eliminating polls and creating a playoff system is extremely idealistic and, like I've said, has no chance of happening, but I argue eliminating any type of bias while you still rely 100% on opinions, is just as idealistic and unlikely to happen. How do you pick the 7th or 8th team? What do you do with a Boise St or Utah and this year maybe Hawaii? A playoff system doesn't have to be eight teams. It could be four, eight, 12, 16, or more. And there are multiple different ideas that have been brought up for choosing teams all the way from a college basketball-esque selection committee to every conference's division winner goes and gets a home game and the second place team in each goes in as a wild card of sorts. Athlon had the best idea I've seen for a playoff system 2 years ago. I'll try to find the magazine because I can't remember exactly how they set it up, but it's definitely doable. Athlon's playoff had 32 teams, but could easily have been cut to 16 and it kept together the current bowls (playoff games were based in current bowl sites).

Let's say the 6 BCS conference winners go. 2 spots left. Not a chance in horse hockey would the BE get one of the 2 remaining spots. That gives the SEC, Big 10 or 12 another team. Last year a 10-2 Rutgers or WV wouldn't have been seriously considered. The last 2 would have been either Michigan, Texas or LSU. Why, they travel. What does travel mean? Big money. GOB's like big money as does any businessman. It's rigged brother, trust me. That's just part of it. Who makes the decisions? It sure isn't anyone from out this way. Where are the bowls? Not here. Yes, they are not in the midwest either but the Big 10 has a heck of a lot of power when it comes to collegian football decisions. Just look at the Rose Bowl and how they won't give that deal up. It's tradition and a heck of a lot of money....and power. All bias aside, if there was a playoff last year LSU likely would've won it. Travel or not, they were deserving. We'll never know. But, the only teams that beat the top 3 BE were in the BE and until they are beat what makes LSU better? LSU was talented yes but that perception is always in their and teams like them favor. It always is...always. What big time teams did those three top BE teams even play? Also, Florida didn't lose to anybody outside the SEC. What makes them any less deserving? Bias often goes two ways my friend.

I can't stand Steve Spurrier.

Let's say the 6 BCS conference winners go. 2 spots left. Not a chance in horse hockey would the BE get one of the 2 remaining spots. That gives the SEC, Big 10 or 12 another team. Last year a 10-2 Rutgers or WV wouldn't have been seriously considered. The last 2 would have been either Michigan, Texas or LSU. Why, they travel. What does travel mean? Big money. GOB's like big money as does any businessman. It's rigged brother, trust me. That's just part of it. Who makes the decisions? It sure isn't anyone from out this way. Where are the bowls? Not here. Yes, they are not in the midwest either but the Big 10 has a heck of a lot of power when it comes to collegian football decisions. Just look at the Rose Bowl and how they won't give that deal up. It's tradition and a heck of a lot of money....and power. I realize the current system is based off of how much profit the college presidents can rack up - that's why there's no chance of a playoff system. But again, if there were a true playoff system, you would not rely on polls. Therefore, you would have teams earning their way into the playoffs, not making it in because some coaches and sportswriters - the vast majority of whom watch a very small number of games - think you're the best. Now I realize eliminating polls and creating a playoff system is extremely idealistic and, like I've said, has no chance of happening, but I argue eliminating any type of bias while you still rely 100% on opinions, is just as idealistic and unlikely to happen.

Because they (gob) control the bowl system. If there was a playoff system last year, Who was going to go? OSU, Florida, USC and Oklahoma/Michigan. Did you see a BE team there? Once one lost they were booted out. Why? Penn State blows through the Big 10 and then has a somewhat close game in the bowl, this effected them even then. They are no longer #1, Nebraska is. If you look throughout college football history for the past 40 years or so you'll see the discrepancies of this. A lot of posters get peeved on how ND always gets the benefit of doubt but the BE is the bastard son of college football and the PAC 10 isn't far behind. Just look through the polls throughout the last 40 years and tell me when you see an eastern team with the same record as the ones I've mentioned be ranked ahead of them. The last time Syracuse was undefeated in 87 they were still ranked behind a 1 loss gob team. Heck, Florida and Auburn have moaned about this in the resent past but they've also benefited from this when it came to ties with an eastern team. A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way. As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion. I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included. Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are. It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you. Yeah, they really do for some strange reason. I feel like the proverbial hippy that screams against the establishment when it comes to this topic. Just trying to stick it to the man I suppose. but youre going for the establishment. so youre a fake? Yeah, ok. Well anyways IMB. Eastern football has had a tough time breaking the established midwestern/southern griphold on college football and I've been frustrated with it for years. The Penn States that went 11-0 and get voted 2nd or 3rd and now to still have that problem even though the teams in the BE are quite competitive. Are they better, who knows but they often are ranked under any of the " old power conferences" if they have the same record at a very alarming rate. Just look at the last polls for 2006. If a BE team has the same record as one of the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, USC or ND they are almost always ranked behind them. You guys that are in these conferences or teams have had this God given right and imo don't realize it's happening, choose to ignore it or think they're always better. Just look at the voting of the Heismans, the voters always go by area or section of the country on who they vote for and people talk about eastern bias well believe me, it sure as heck isn't in college football. So ya, it frustrates me because they don't allow this to be determined on the field and if they do get a playoff you better believe the good ole boys will control how it works and manipulate it to their benefit. The Barry Alverez types will keep the OSU and Michigan teams in it until they are forced out with 2 losses while if a BE team losses once they are out of the hunt, no matter how good the league is. Don't get me wrong, last year OSU deserved to play the final but a few teams like Louisville and Boise St as you know deserved a shot to be playing them and Michigan and Florida were the only 2 that had a chance. You're getting a bit paranoid with the conspiracies here Cuse. The beauty of a playoff system is that it takes the opinions out of choosing who the most deserving team is. What exactly are you saying? The playoffs would be set up where every midwestern/southern team gets two playoff losses while every other gets only one? There's no way that would fly (or even be proposed) and I think you know it. Care to explain how they "good ole boy network" could rig a playoff system?

A lot of Vol fans are terrified at the thought of playing Florida this week. Honestly, though, I think we stand a good shot at winning. The offense has been good to very good for six of eight quarters so far this season and the defensive players used much better form tackling Golden Eagles yesterday. Also, Austin Rogers and Lucas Taylor have emerged as serious go-to threats for Ainge and, because of that, I think Erik can dissect the young Florida defense quite well. It'll be interesting to see which setup works out better. Tennessee played two tough teams before Florida and the Crocs played two patsies.

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included. Interesting. Something tells me it wouldn't be nearly as exciting as the playoffs, though. :D i dont doubt that. ive always been interested to see BCS rankings w/ point differential after the bowl season. i think wed be surprised at some of the things we would see. it quite honestly it would be correct. Why not have all 64 bowl teams play one bowl game in mid december, then have the 32 winners play in late december or early January. the sample size of cross-conference games between the elite doubles. That's an interesting idea. Not sure it would work logistically though. Each bowl would want some level of focus even in the first round and having all 32 games around the same time would be a bit of a jumbled mess from the bowl reps' perspective.