BCS (Boy, Computers S**k) [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

aurorasooner

10/15/2007, 08:40 AM

We were the benificiary of the computers a couple of years ago... can't have it both ways I guess Agreed. Any Sooner says that the computer ratings suck, has a short memory. In any event, the BCS ratings are the least of our worries, and way down the list. I don't think anyone here thought we would be in the top 10 while breaking in a rookie QB and 2 rookie linebackers and a relatively new defensive front, especially as ineffective as we've been rushing the ball. While sitting at #21 in NCAA rushing offense, which isn't bad at all, we've played the #116 team in rushing D--N.Texas, #102 --Tulsa, #72 --Utah State, #44--Missouri, #38 Miami Fla (projected in preseason to be one of the better rushing D in the nation), #34 Colorado, and Texas in at #23. None ranked in the top 20 in rushing D. I think everyone thought that our running game would carry the offense the 1st half of season this year, and it's been exactly the opposite.

dolemitesooner

10/15/2007, 08:44 AM

Why do they suck? Because they can see that our scedule sucks and make an unbiased decision.

The Big 12 sucks. Oklahoma has ****ing played nobody state all year.

we should have never lost to colorado. Its only going to get worse.

STFU

The_Red_Patriot

10/15/2007, 09:03 AM

The computers are still mad at us.

Remember when OU and the BCS hooked up in 2003? Well we gave the BCS the clap.

The BCS is still bitter about it. Come on BCS, its not like we gave you the Herp!!!

Sooner in Tampa

10/15/2007, 09:13 AM

I have wondered how USF can get such great love from the computers when they struggled to beat Elon a 1AA powerhouse.

OklahomaTuba

10/15/2007, 09:14 AM

MrKurt

10/15/2007, 09:15 AM

They need to junk that computer system and leave it to people who know something about the sport.You mean the people that only dropped USC to #10 after they lost to Stanford?

Colorado keeps OU out of the game, not the computers. :)

MamaMia

10/15/2007, 10:18 AM

We were the benificiary of the computers a couple of years ago... can't have it both ways I guessOU has benefited from the computer ranking system twice, and twice they've changed the formula because of that fact, due to the whine factor of those under us.

SoonerBBall

10/15/2007, 01:09 PM

Stoop Dawg

10/15/2007, 01:32 PM

Could we be left out in the cold due to some guy living in his parents' basement's computer formula? They need to junk that computer system and leave it to people who know something about the sport. :mad:

I agree, objectivity sucks.

Also, the media hates us.

It's amazing we are able win championships in spite of all the computers, media, and even refs being out to get us. There is little doubt that we are the best team in the history of CFB. Hell, we'd probably give most NFL teams a run for their money.

Just think how we'd dominate if we were given a "fair" chance like everyone else. Holy crap!!

85sooners

10/15/2007, 01:44 PM

ou will win it all !!!!!! now shut it:P

KABOOKIE

10/15/2007, 01:51 PM

I guess we could go back to the old system where #1 and #2 never played each other. Or, how about a playoff?

crawfish

10/15/2007, 01:53 PM

When we lost to CU, we lost the right to complain.

We'll just have to win out and take what comes.

SoonerBOI

10/15/2007, 02:02 PM

Well, we still have a LOT of football games to play. We'll see how it plays up. We just have to play the cards we are dealt with.

GoTigers

10/15/2007, 05:28 PM

So you beat Mizzou, ranked 11 at the time, the sooners move up 1 spot in the AP, and 5 in the BCS?

OU is better than BC, USF, and probably Ohio State

EDIT

A reasonable top 5

Ohio State
USF
LSU
OU
BC

jeremy885

10/15/2007, 05:35 PM

OU has benefited from the computer ranking system twice, and twice they've changed the formula because of that fact, due to the whine factor of those under us.

They "tweak" the system every year. It's not just us (mostly).

Sooner98

10/15/2007, 05:39 PM

Vaevictis

10/15/2007, 05:41 PM

1. Computer rankings are bogus.
2. Human polls are worse.

sanantoniosooner

10/15/2007, 05:42 PM

My computer at home is unfair.

I just used it to check my bank balance and I don't like the information it gave me.

Can somebody tweak this for me?

GoTigers

10/15/2007, 05:42 PM

In years where OU's computer rating is low, the computers are inaccurate, corrupt and biased against OU!!!!1

In years where OU's computer rating is high, the computers are completely accurate and fair!!!!1

:rolleyes:
This is true for every fanbase.

I take issue with Kansas at 13, and Missouri, with a loss to a top-5 OU (See you at Arrowhead later this year, by the way.) 16 behind 2 loss florida.

Sooner1979

10/15/2007, 05:43 PM

When we lost to CU, we lost the right to complain.

We'll just have to win out and take what comes.

Simple and correct...The only time OU or our fans has any right to complain is if we take care of business in a given season (going undefeated) and get left out...

On one hand, OU cant be responsible if they schedule a series with teams that are usually decent...(minus Utah State) and they cant be responsible for their conference sucking balls...But on the other hand, if OU loses to someone on their said schedule of whom they should have beaten, they lose their right to "expect" a fair system...

OU on any given year schedules a good to very good team, a mediocre to good team, and a cream puff that is sometimes good...This is usually a good formula, expecially if your conference is taking care of their part...OSU sucking every single year and playing hard in one game(OU) is not doing their part....

silverwheels

10/15/2007, 05:44 PM

(See you at Arrowhead later this year, by the way.)

You have fun there, we'll be in San Antonio. ;)

tommieharris91

10/15/2007, 05:47 PM

My computer at home is unfair.

I just used it to check my bank balance and I don't like the information it gave me.

Can somebody tweak this for me?

All I need is you account number and password. :D

FirstandGoal

10/15/2007, 05:52 PM

When we lost to CU, we lost the right to complain.

We'll just have to win out and take what comes.

...and we have a winner!

bri

10/15/2007, 06:33 PM

A computer shouldn't be deciding who plays for all the marbles. It should be done on a football field.

BCS = the most corrupt system in the history of sports, hands down. Anyone who defends it is simply clueless to that fact.

A computer isn't deciding who plays for all the marbles. A computer is helping decide who plays for all the marbles, along with people. Oh, and since "people" program the "computer", I'd say your fears of Skynet becoming sentient and hosing us from a borderline national title spot are even more unfounded than usual.

Oh, wait, that was logic wasn't it? My bad. AAAAHHHHHH!!! BOO, BCS!! EVIL COMPUTERS!!!! MEDIA BIAS!!!!!! CROOKED REFS!!!!! THE FIX IS IN!!!!!

josh09

10/15/2007, 06:35 PM

trwxxa

10/15/2007, 06:49 PM

I'm glad they average the six computer pools, considering one of them has Michigan 10th, one spot ahead of the Sooners.

If we win out, we have nothing to worry about.

Sooner98

10/15/2007, 07:27 PM

You have fun there, we'll be in San Antonio. ;)

I think he was referring to the KU/MU game, played at Arrowhead this year.

rainiersooner

10/15/2007, 07:29 PM

Simple and correct...The only time OU or our fans has any right to complain is if we take care of business in a given season (going undefeated) and get left out...

On one hand, OU cant be responsible if they schedule a series with teams that are usually decent...(minus Utah State) and they cant be responsible for their conference sucking balls...But on the other hand, if OU loses to someone on their said schedule of whom they should have beaten, they lose their right to "expect" a fair system...

OU on any given year schedules a good to very good team, a mediocre to good team, and a cream puff that is sometimes good...This is usually a good formula, expecially if your conference is taking care of their part...OSU sucking every single year and playing hard in one game(OU) is not doing their part....

For the record, does the Big XII really suck? There are 6 teams from the conference in the AP Top 25, second only to the SEC with 7.

Sooner98

10/15/2007, 07:39 PM

Playoff.....

While I like the idea of some sort of playoff, the problem then arises as to who gets to participate in the playoff? This will be decided by...get ready....human polls and computer rankings.

In other words, people who love to complain about anything and everything regarding college football will still be able to complain, under a playoff system.

SoonerKnight

10/15/2007, 07:40 PM

North Texas is just about to catch fire and our numbers will shoot up.
:D

Leroy Lizard

10/15/2007, 07:53 PM

They should go 100% computer polls and publish the algorithm. Then, everyone knows what they have to do.

silverwheels

10/15/2007, 10:53 PM

I think he was referring to the KU/MU game, played at Arrowhead this year.

He was clearly referring to OU and a possible Big 12 Championship Game rematch.

Missouri, with a loss to a top-5 OU (See you at Arrowhead later this year, by the way.)

Doged

10/16/2007, 12:33 AM

They should go 100% computer polls and publish the algorithm. Then, everyone knows what they have to do.

I'm not sure, but I think this may be the first post of your's I've agreed with. :D

Having part of the championship picture be a popularity vote just lacks any degree of commmon sense and always has. So long as everyone knows up front what they need to do to increase their standing the computers make a lot more sense than a popular vote.

Crucifax Autumn

10/16/2007, 12:50 AM

I have to reluctantly agree. However, the computer poll would have to be VERY accurate and it would have to take into account EVERY aspect of the game while allowing for fluke occurrences. It would definitely have to have a strong SOS component, but also take into account that the schedules are made so far in advance that it's no team's fault if their opponents suck. Perhaps a good way to deal with this would be some sort of "non-quality loss" adjustment in which you are punished MORE for losing to a crap opponent, but not really overly punished for beating a weak one.

Overall, getting this system right would be VERY difficult, but it sucked before the BCS and it's sucked after every tweak, and it will suck when they change it again.

As fans of the sport we just can't win. Even a playoff produces wacky results as we can see in the pros and other sports.

ouflak

10/16/2007, 05:38 AM

Even a playoff produces wacky results as we can see in the pros and *ALL* other sports.

Atleast a wacky result in a playoff is usually, for the most part, decided by the players and coaches on the field. Anyway, I don't want to start a threadjack here so I'll just stop.

I don't think the computers are any more biased than they should be. Our schedule is weak and we have lost to a less-than-mediocre team. That's it and there really isn't any way around it. Maybe some of our opponents will pick things up (Tulsa and North Texas both won this last weekend). Maybe we'll win out. There are still the same factors as ever to consider. At this point, in my opinion, we need help. There is absolutely no way we even dream about a mythical national championship opportunity if there are two decent undefeated teams left. If there are a pile of 1-loss teams, SOS will be the deciding factor, which means that our opponents are really going to have to start winning. Us winning out just won't be enough at this point. The only way I can see that being enough is if pretty much everybody else gets 2 losses, and then we start sounding like hornfans.

zeke

10/16/2007, 06:47 AM

When we lost to CU, we lost the right to complain.

We'll just have to win out and take what comes.

nothing more needs to be said

LRoss

10/16/2007, 09:25 AM

Yep, a playoff would fix everything. Everybody seems to know this right? I mean, seriously, look at the basketball tournament. Nobody EVER complains about who gets in and who doesn't, or even about who gets put where among the teams that do get in. On selection Sunday afternoon everybody holds hands around a campfire roasting s'mores and singing kum-ba-yah, no?

And yes, of course I and everybody else would love a playoff system, but I don't get why so many people seem to think that everything would be controversy-free. There would, in point of fact, be MORE teams who thought they "deserve" the number 8 or 16 or whatever slot than the current system where generally there are only 3 or 4 teams with a "legitimate" claim on the #2. Imagine if the system was basically the same, except the 8 BCS teams were put in a playoff. Imagine how many people would have absolutely keeled over at Wake, Boise, and Dame being in instead of, say, Wisconsin? I know, the system could change, but which one makes everybody happy? Exactly.

And, by the way, one more vote for crawfish's post being completely inarguable.

OklaPony

10/16/2007, 09:56 AM

When we lost to CU, we lost the right to complain.

We'll just have to win out and take what comes.
Best post in this thread and 100% true. Just like Miami in 2000... when they lost to Washington they forfeited any claim to a legitmate gripe.

Vaevictis

10/16/2007, 12:01 PM

Yep, a playoff would fix everything. Everybody seems to know this right? I mean, seriously, look at the basketball tournament. Nobody EVER complains about who gets in and who doesn't, or even about who gets put where among the teams that do get in. On selection Sunday afternoon everybody holds hands around a campfire roasting s'mores and singing kum-ba-yah, no?

And yes, of course I and everybody else would love a playoff system, but I don't get why so many people seem to think that everything would be controversy-free. (...)

Don't do a nationwide selection. Admit 8 member conferences. Each conference gets to send one team, ostensibly its champion.

Your conference ain't in? Join one that is, or form one with enough marketing power to force its way in. You're independent? Join a goddamn conference.

Don't win your conference? Tough ****.

Controversy over.

bri

10/16/2007, 01:23 PM

That is the stupidest, most arrogant thing I've ever heard.

Kudos.

LRoss

10/16/2007, 01:30 PM

But the controversy is NEVER over is my point. Your idea has some merit, but look at this -- if there are 8 member conferences, and one team from each, won't 8 gazillion people cry "foul!" when it's obviously NOT the best 8 teams? The ACC and Big East winners get in but the loser of LSU/Florida doesn't? Or how about a couple years ago when we lost to K-State? We were a power all year, they were mediocre. And even worse are the two conferences that aren't currently BCS conferences -- do we let the winner of the WAC in?

Again, all I'm saying is that there will ALWAYS be controversy.

bri

10/16/2007, 01:52 PM

Parity has made that sort of "eight 'good' conferences" thinking laughably obsolete.

Stoop Dawg

10/16/2007, 03:03 PM

Parity? You been drinking the kool aid again?

TUSooner

10/16/2007, 03:11 PM

Could we be left out in the cold due to some guy living in his parents' basement's computer formula? They need to junk that computer system and leave it to people who know something about the sport. :mad:
That's silly. When the pollsters neg us, do you cry for the computers to have more weight? I'll bet you do.
No rating system is perfect and even the "best" team doesn't always win on the field (e.g., CU, Stanford). But give the computers and their programmers some due. At least the machines don't vote for OhSU based on games they won 40 years ago. And they don't vote for BC because they're from the EAST. Plus, when we win, the computers will be smart enough to come around. :D

TUSooner

10/16/2007, 03:26 PM

A computer shouldn't be deciding who plays for all the marbles. It should be done on a football field.

BCS = the most corrupt system in the history of sports, hands down. Anyone who defends it is simply clueless to that fact.

Well, you ARE blustering again, but that's OK.

Define "corrupt."

Compare the BCS (that includes those "corrupt" computers) with the old polls that relied mainly on newpapermen (well known for sobriety and industry!). Were those guys incorruptible? Were they even knowledgable?

Read bri's response about what the computers really do.

And consider this: Whether you, or I, or the NCAA, or the BCS cabal want to admit it it, the BCS is slouching its miserable way inexorably toward the Holy Grail of College Football - a PLAYOFF system.

The surest sign is that the "BCS Championship Game" is now separate from the other bowls. It won't be too long before the winners of 2 of the big bowls will be playing in that "extra" BCS game. Then there will be "quarterfinal bowls". Somebody always has to decide who gets in, and I trust the ever-tweaked BSC formula better than any known alternative.

bri

10/16/2007, 03:50 PM

Parity? You been drinking the kool aid again?

Yes, and it's blue.

http://espn.go.com/photo/2007/0101/ncf_ap_johnson_275.jpg

Welcome to 2007, people. A lot of people are going to have to rediscover how to be a true sports fan, and not just a myopic partisan to their particular team. Over the years, I have observed the following trends in lazy college football fans. I list them here, with a practical, real-world application of how it impacts not just them, but everyone that has to listen to them:

Trend 1: My team is the only really good team; everyone else sucks. Well, that's just silly. And yet, flying in the face of sheer logic and common sense, scores of sports fans cling to this belief. So, when you run into a situation like the 2005 Orange Bowl, said fans are incapable of proccessing a 55-19 shellacking at the hands of a good team that didn't make the mistakes we did. They try and pretend it "didn't happen", which just makes them (and us) look like complete imbiciles. Or they maintain that it was a fluke, which is somehow even dumber. Look, I'm not saying USC beats us 55-19 every time, but if those two teams played ten times, SC probably wins seven or eight times. Everyone forgets that 2004 OU defense struggled down the stretch; if we couldn't stop aggy and aggie from hanging over 30 points each on us, what makes you think Norm Chow's insanely talented offense was somehow going to get shut out? There are other good teams in America, instead of trying to act like it isn't so; how about celebrating the fact that we're one of them?

Trend 2: Only teams from BCS conferences are any good. Again, that doesn't hold water anymore. While the "mid-major" conferences may be down a little this year, there's still ample talent across the country. The two-headed monster of scholarship limits and revenue sharing coupled with the proliferation of media outlets means that the days of the best players going to the same 20 schools are long gone. Now, Joe Blue-Chip Recruit doesn't have to settle for taking a partial ride to Vandy to play on TV; he can go to a WAC or C-USA school and know that Mom and Dad can watch him on national TV at least once or twice a year. And when you throw in the advent of the spread offense and its various offshoots (no-huddle and multiple formation offenses with plenty of trick plays in the playbook), you get a playing field that levels out real quick. If you don't believe me, just glance back up at that pic for a second. Parity is real, and it's not going away. You can either accept it and adjust your way of thinking, or continue to look like a dinosaur that constantly rants about "undeserving" or "inferior" teams. Of course, if you want to resemble an East Coast football writer or coach talking about that upstart Oklahoma program, circa 1950...be my guest.

tommieharris91

10/16/2007, 04:03 PM

My team is the best and everyone else sux. Hell, we're still undefeated!!!1

Only BCS teams that aren't in the Big Least, ACC, Big 10/11, Pac-10, and SEC are any good!!1!

kevpks

10/16/2007, 04:03 PM

I agree with much of bri's post. However, I hate the mindset the media and some fans get into about looking for the next Boise St., like it will happen every season. Look at Hawaii this year. Can anyone honestly tell me they are worthy of BCS consideration over a two loss Kentucky, Florida, or a one loss Kansas or Arizona State at the end of the year? I don't think it is good for college football to throw a team like Hawaii in the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl just because they were able to run the table through a weak schedule. And you can't really compare them to Boise last year because at least they looked impressive almost every game last season. Hawaii has struggled against the likes of San Jose St. and LA Tech.

bri

10/16/2007, 04:08 PM

I agree on Hawaii. I watched the second half of their game with SJSU and was astonished at how utterly average they are. Even if they win out, I think they get shut out of a BCS slot. At least, I hope they are. :D

Vaevictis

10/16/2007, 04:47 PM

That is the stupidest, most arrogant thing I've ever heard.

Kudos.

Heh, you either have Alzheimer's, or you can't hear yourself speak. :D

But the controversy is NEVER over is my point. Your idea has some merit, but look at this -- if there are 8 member conferences, and one team from each, won't 8 gazillion people cry "foul!" when it's obviously NOT the best 8 teams? The ACC and Big East winners get in but the loser of LSU/Florida doesn't? Or how about a couple years ago when we lost to K-State? We were a power all year, they were mediocre.

Win your conference. Doing so is your first "playoff" game. If you can't win your conference, go home.

And even worse are the two conferences that aren't currently BCS conferences -- do we let the winner of the WAC in?

You need powers of two, unless you want byes. Which I don't have a problem with.

Again, all I'm saying is that there will ALWAYS be controversy.

Okay, well, I guess as humans we can always stir up controversy about anything. But legitimate controversy, not so much. Win your conference or go home. Then win each game in the playoffs, or go home. Last man standing wins.

The only real controversy there is which conferences should be included, and that's easy to resolve: Expand it to include all conferences, or just say, "Sorry, your conference doesn't have enough marketing power. Join or form one that does."

bri

10/16/2007, 05:19 PM

Here's a fun game...put our posts side by side and ask someone to tell you which one is the stupid arrogant one: the one with a reasoned arguement as to why myopic views such as yours are outdated and unreasonable, or your myopic arguement full of outdated and unreasonable views.

silverwheels

10/16/2007, 05:23 PM

I think we should go back to the days when they awarded NC's before the bowl games. Fun times.

mdklatt

10/16/2007, 05:40 PM

This is getting better than a SO thread. :pop:

IronHorseSooner

10/16/2007, 07:09 PM

That's silly. When the pollsters neg us, do you cry for the computers to have more weight? I'll bet you do.

I have a background in stats, and work with them daily. You can manipulate the variables however you want for a desired result. Why do you think that the BCS has had to change every year?...No, I generally don't have a problem with voters. Even in 2003, I didn't have a problem (as surprising at that may be). I would much rather someone vote us out up front than it be done with numbers. Harry Truman once said "there are three types of lies- lies, d@mn lies, and statistics."

Sooner1979

10/16/2007, 07:23 PM

For the record, does the Big XII really suck? There are 6 teams from the conference in the AP Top 25, second only to the SEC with 7.

I didnt specifically say the Big 12 sucked this year, because it doesnt...I have said that all year...

I probably should have said that when all the "Experts" are saying that our conference is bad, it shouldn't hurt us if we continually run the table...

This year the Big XII is much better than anybody is giving it credit...10 of 12 of the teams are in the top 40, and more than half are in the Top 25, 2 are in the Top 12 and so on and so forth...

TUSooner

10/16/2007, 07:41 PM

I have a background in stats, and work with them daily. You can manipulate the variables however you want for a desired result. Why do you think that the BCS has had to change every year?...No, I generally don't have a problem with voters. Even in 2003, I didn't have a problem (as surprising at that may be). I would much rather someone vote us out up front than it be done with numbers. Harry Truman once said "there are three types of lies- lies, d@mn lies, and statistics."

That argument supports a very unremakable proposition: Of course variables can be manipulated.
But I see the tweaking of the BCS formula as evidence of an effort to make the variables more reasonable.
But do not actually despise human pollsters. Humans have an instinctive, if sometimes tinted, appreciation for what really happens in a game. But humans are certainly subject to manipulation as insidious as that of computers. And they cannot obtain, receive, and process all the information that a computer can. Remember the New Orleans Times-Picayune voter who got sacked from the AP poll a year or 2 ago because he neglected to inform himself that the Sooners had won a game in which were trailing the last time he checked? I don't remember which game, but you could look it up. I doubt he was a unique case of badly informed voting.

And look at those best informed of all the experts - gamblers. They try to process ridiculous amounts of information, but they still keep the bookies in clover. The only reason bookies should not make the rankngs is because they don't just evaluate the teams; they evaluate the minds of the betting public, too (because they really just want the money). But bookies even use computers! And you can bet (sorry) they want the most accurate predictor available.

I've been watching college football for 40 years and more. The BCS is imperfect, but it's far from the worst thing that's ever happened, and it might even be the best . . . so far, until we get to The Playoff.

BTW- I remember a fictional game between USC and OU back in about 72. BB Sr.* did the "play by play" of a scripted radio game in which OU beat USC - based on (ta-dah) COMPUTER RANKINGS. It was actually pretty cool to listen to.

*It coulda been Mike Treps, but I think is was BBS.

Scott D

10/16/2007, 07:56 PM

josh09

10/16/2007, 09:14 PM

While I like the idea of some sort of playoff, the problem then arises as to who gets to participate in the playoff? This will be decided by...get ready....human polls and computer rankings.

In other words, people who love to complain about anything and everything regarding college football will still be able to complain, under a playoff system.

Take the top 8 in the AP poll. Or 10, and let 1 and 2 have byes.

Crucifax Autumn

10/16/2007, 11:50 PM

Leroy Lizard

10/17/2007, 01:36 AM

It would definitely have to have a strong SOS component, but also take into account that the schedules are made so far in advance that it's no team's fault if their opponents suck.

You can't reward a team for good intentions (which is the same as punishing all other teams in the same instance). It doesn't matter how good Miami was five years ago. All that matters in determining who is worthy is how good Miami is now.

By the way, a team cannot just join a conference; it has to be invited. Therefore, the idea of punishing a team because it isn't in a conference is a bit extreme.

I think conference records are irrelevant in determining who should play for #1. If OU beats (say) Kansas but loses to (say) Arizona State, how is it any different then if OU beats Arizona State and loses to Kansas? Just because the team is in your conference doesn't make them a tougher foe, and beating a fellow conference team is no better indication of a team's strength than beating an out-of-conference team. Both suit up 11 men on the field.

There should be a national title, and a conference title. One should not have anything to do with the other. After all, which team is really more worthy of playing for a national title? A team that loses three OOC games but wins its conference, or a team that has only one loss, but in the conference championship game?

I don't want a playoff, but that is for another thread.

Leroy Lizard

10/17/2007, 01:39 AM

I think the only realistic way to have a playoff is to do everything as we are doing it now minus the championship game. Then let those 4 winners have a playoff. That amounts to an 8 team playoff and only adds 1 week to the current season.

Agreed. But I'm not even in favor of going this far. Just play the bowl games and crown a winner and be done with it. If your team gets shafted, there is always next year. And besides, what can be more fun than crying to your buddies that your team really deserved to play for it all?

Crucifax Autumn

10/17/2007, 01:59 AM

And besides, what can be more fun than crying to your buddies that your team really deserved to play for it all?

Using your sorrow as a ploy to get something kiky from your wife/gf.

GrapevineSooner

10/17/2007, 09:34 AM

My computer at home is unfair.

I just used it to check my bank balance and I don't like the information it gave me.

Can somebody tweak this for me?

My computer at work acts up all the time.

My co-worker's machine works just fine.

I'm an OU fan and he's an LSU fan.

Coincidence? I think not. :mad:

Stoop Dawg

10/17/2007, 11:35 AM

Yes, and it's blue.

http://espn.go.com/photo/2007/0101/ncf_ap_johnson_275.jpg

Welcome to 2007, people.

Welcome to 1938, bri. The year TCU won a NC.

Welcome to 1984, bri. The year that BYU won it's first, last, and only CFB national championship.

Welcome to 2001, bri. The year that Fresno St. had an incredible run and made it to #8 in the polls.

Anyway, rather than post my normal condescending garbage, let me just say that there is no more parity in CFB now than there ever has been. Not to any significant degree, anyway. The mid-majors occasionally field a very good team, but none of them are able to recruit on a regular basis and maintain that high level of play. Take a look at the previous AP NCs - it is, in fact, the same 20 teams every year.

However, let me be clear that I heartily favor a system that gives the "one year wonder" an equal chance at winning a NC. Just because Boise St is not, and never will be, a consistent national contender doesn't mean that they don't deserve a shot when their one great year rolls around.

Stoop Dawg

10/17/2007, 11:36 AM

Agreed. But I'm not even in favor of going this far. Just play the bowl games and crown a winner and be done with it. If your team gets shafted, there is always next year. And besides, what can be more fun than crying to your buddies that your team really deserved to play for it all?

That's fine for the fans, but not for the players.

Stoop Dawg

10/17/2007, 11:40 AM

The only constant is that the computers in the BCS continue to rate teams exactly the same as they have since before the inception of the BCS as the way to decide who is #1 and #2 at the end of the season. It's the external factors that had nothing to do with the computers that have changed virtually every year.

THAT'S NOT TRUE!! THAT'S INACRIT!!!1

The BCS forced several computer ratings to remove their "margin of victory" component a few years ago. If I recall, one guy refused to remove it and was subsequently removed from the BCS formula.

Stoop Dawg

10/17/2007, 11:45 AM

I have a background in stats, and work with them daily. You can manipulate the variables however you want for a desired result.

So, you're under the impression that the computer formula is "manipulated" each week in order to favor a particular team or conference?

Here's your tinfoil hat.....

Leroy Lizard

10/17/2007, 12:01 PM

That's fine for the fans, but not for the players.

The world doesn't revolve around their desires. They're getting a free college education. They shouldn't have any complaints. If they find the present system unbearable, then they can pay their own way through college like most of us did.

Stoop Dawg

10/17/2007, 01:21 PM

So, your under the impression that the reason most of these kids play football is for the education?

Leroy Lizard

10/17/2007, 01:54 PM

Whatever reason they are playing, they are playing. If they are only wanting the opportunity to play in the NFL, college football provides them that. If they simply want to have fun, or score with girls, college football provides them that.

Whatever psychological damage they endure because their team wasn't able to prove their dominance on the field, I am sure they will eventually get over it.

Rock Hard Corn Frog

10/17/2007, 04:50 PM

[QUOTE=Stoop Dawg]So, you're under the impression that the computer formula is "manipulated" each week in order to favor a particular team or conference?

QUOTE]

I'm starting to wonder if the lizard isn't "manipulated" each week. :D

What's this "they players will get over it ****? (I'll save the Gundy speech)

So you show up, work hard, get good grades, bust you tail for a shot at the NC game and you don't have ANY gripe if you finish 3rd in the BCS say because you are say...bent over in Oregon.

No just STFU, get your degree and go play in the NFL.

Leroy Lizard

10/17/2007, 05:37 PM

So you show up, work hard, get good grades, bust you tail for a shot at the NC game and you don't have ANY gripe if you finish 3rd in the BCS say because you are say...bent over in Oregon.

I am sure they will manage to find productive lives after their college playing careers are over, regardless (especially if they have busted their butts to earn good grades as you suggest).

Football is fun, but it is just a game. Let's not make it out to be more than it is. No matter what disappointments these players will suffer in their lives, not getting to play for the national title is probably not going to be a particularly severe one.

sanantoniosooner

10/17/2007, 05:49 PM

Leroy........you are a beacon of sunshine in a dreary world.

sorry........thought I could keep a straight face while typing that.

Crucifax Autumn

10/18/2007, 02:06 AM

The world doesn't revolve around their desires. They're getting a free college education. They shouldn't have any complaints. If they find the present system unbearable, then they can pay their own way through college like most of us did.

Ever heard of a walk-on? I know they end up "former walk-ons" if they are good, but still...

There is a such thing as a college athlete who does pay at least part of their tuition.

Unless, of course, it's SUC and then they can pay those kids whatever they're worth!

Leroy Lizard

10/18/2007, 03:55 AM

There is a such thing as a college athlete who does pay at least part of their tuition.

Sure. But that doesn't affect the argument.

Egeo

10/18/2007, 08:08 AM

When we lost to CU, we lost the right to complain.

We'll just have to win out and take what comes.
darn skippy

Stoop Dawg

10/18/2007, 12:30 PM

Sure. But that doesn't affect the argument.

The arguement appears to be "winning isn't important".

Football is, indeed, just a game. So, let's forget all these "Conference Championship" things and "win/loss records". Hell, let's not even keep score. I mean, what's the point? Everyone's a winner just for participating!!

In fact, I'm so compelled by your "arguement" that I'm thinking we should probably just abolish football altogether. I mean, really, it's just taking time away from more important things - like getting an education.

Some people just don't get the "competitive" part of "competitive sports".

Here's a little test for you, Leroy. Go to your local rec center and talk to the person who runs the bball league. Tell them they don't need a playoff and there is no reason to have a "league champion". Tell them that the players will "get over it". See how well your idea goes over and report back to us.

Leroy Lizard

10/18/2007, 06:19 PM

The arguement appears to be "winning isn't important".

Football is, indeed, just a game. So, let's forget all these "Conference Championship" things and "win/loss records". Hell, let's not even keep score. I mean, what's the point? Everyone's a winner just for participating!!

If I truly believe that we shouldn't keep score, I would have said so.

I believe that people should slow down on the freeway. That doesn't mean I support lowering the speed limit to 10 mph.

Here's a little test for you, Leroy. Go to your local rec center and talk to the person who runs the bball league. Tell them they don't need a playoff and there is no reason to have a "league champion". Tell them that the players will "get over it". See how well your idea goes over and report back to us.

I don't base my arguments on what some yokel at the local rec center thinks. Is he somehow an authority on what is right and wrong in the world?

By the way, the state high school football champion of Oklahoma doesn't get to play the state champions from other states, so there is no way to determine which team is truly the best team in the nation. Does that prevent kids from playing the sport? Is the inability to determine a true No. 1 somehow a grievous event that cannot be psychologically overcome? Do high school football players end up with missing holes in their lives?

My brother was track champion at a nearby race track. There are track champions at other tracks that could possibly beat him. But he has better things to do with his life than to go driving around all over the state in an attempt to settle who is the best.

If settling the issue over who is number 1 on the field is truly crucial to players' and fans' psyche, then how has college football endured for so long without it? How have players managed to have fun with the sport and go on to enjoy life without a playoff? Why do fans tune in every week? Or are you overblowing the importance of competition?

Rock Hard Corn Frog

10/19/2007, 10:10 AM

If I truly believe that we shouldn't keep score, I would have said so, then denied it two days laters because that's how I roll.

I don't base my arguments on what some yokel at the local rec center thinks. Is he somehow an authority on what is right and wrong in the world? Hell no. I am the ultimate authority.

If settling the issue over who is number 1 on the field is truly crucial to players' and fans' psyche, then why don't they just ask me? How have players managed to have fun with the sport and go on to enjoy life without a playoff? Why do fans tune in every week? Or are you overblowing? I know I overblow a lot.

Fixed

Stoop Dawg

10/19/2007, 10:35 AM

I don't base my arguments on what some yokel at the local rec center thinks. Is he somehow an authority on what is right and wrong in the world?

Partially, yes. The people who compete must be satisfied with the rules of the competition, else they will stop competing.

My brother was track champion at a nearby race track. There are track champions at other tracks that could possibly beat him. But he has better things to do with his life than to go driving around all over the state in an attempt to settle who is the best.

I'll notify the Olypmic Committee that the event is no longer needed. :rolleyes:

If settling the issue over who is number 1 on the field is truly crucial to players' and fans' psyche, then how has college football endured for so long without it? How have players managed to have fun with the sport and go on to enjoy life without a playoff? Why do fans tune in every week? Or are you overblowing the importance of competition?

It's not crucial to anyone's psyche, I don't know why you keep implying that I said it is. It's just a game. We don't need a CFB National Champion any more than we need automobiles, telephones, or the internet. After all, we survived the last 6,000 years without those too. The fact is, we want those things.

Look, I'm not the one releasing all these polls and rankings. I'm not the one on TV telling people who the best team in the country is. The CFB fan base wants a national champion. Sorry, they just do. The players also want to win a national championship. Sorry, they just do. The coaches get paid to win national championships. Sorry, they just do. Unfortunately, the current system does not give all teams an equal shot at the crystal football. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why the "current system" is changed every year. If the bowls were fine, why do we have the BCS? If the BCS is fine, why do they "tweak" it every year? If the "tweaks" are working, why is there talk of a "Plus 1" game?

I'm know you like the current system, and I can imagine your frustration over watching it slowly change into a playoff. But as they say, "the only constant is change", so you may as well just roll with it. It's coming. And it'll be here sooner rather than later.

Leroy Lizard

10/19/2007, 12:07 PM

The people who compete must be satisfied with the rules of the competition, else they will stop competing.

We haven't had a playoff in college football for over 100 years! How can you say that they will stop competing? The last time I looked, there was no dropoff in the number of kids wanting to play college sports, playoff or no playoff.

If you really think that players are the ultimate authority on whether or not a playoff is crucial to competition, then you lose the argument because every year there are thousands of high school athletes trying to become members of university teams. The lack of a playoff has not hurt their desire to play college sports one iota.

It's not crucial to anyone's psyche, I don't know why you keep implying that I said it is. It's just a game. We don't need a CFB National Champion any more than we need automobiles, telephones, or the internet. After all, we survived the last 6,000 years without those too. The fact is, we want those things.

Actually, some people's careers and lives depend on automobiles, telephones, and the Internet. To most people, those are not luxury items, but necessities. To equate the needs for those items with a playoff system is absurd.

Look, I'm not the one releasing all these polls and rankings. I'm not the one on TV telling people who the best team in the country is. The CFB fan base wants a national champion. Sorry, they just do.

You can't always get what you want. But you can certainly get what you need. Players in college sports don't need a playoff, but the vast majority of them need an education. And college football provides the opportunity to obtain one, so players should have little complaint about the current system.

I'm know you like the current system, and I can imagine your frustration over watching it slowly change into a playoff. But as they say, "the only constant is change", so you may as well just roll with it. It's coming. And it'll be here sooner rather than later.

Possibly. I tend to think that an NCAA-recognized playoff system is a long ways off, and may not ever occur. In the end, I don't see how it will benefit anyone in any real tangible way.

In our zeal to be continuously entertained, I think we are quickly losing sight of what college sports are supposed to be about. I saw some of the posters in this newsgroup write shameful statements about some of our players over the Colorado loss. Disgusting. So I don't care what the average fan wants.

Stoop Dawg

10/19/2007, 01:01 PM

If you really think that players are the ultimate authority on whether or not a playoff is crucial to competition

I don't, but you seem very intent on putting words in my mouth and then discrediting what I didn't say.

Actually, some people's careers and lives depend on automobiles, telephones, and the Internet. To most people, those are not luxury items, but necessities. To equate the needs for those items with a playoff system is absurd.

Whose life depends on an automobile, telephone, or the internet? How did the human race survive (even prosper) for thousands of years without those things? Ever hear of the Roman Empire? I'm pretty sure they didn't have any of those things. The arguement that "it's been this way for a long time and everything is just fine, so there is no need for change" is bogus.

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out how stupid these two arguements are:

1. Players don't matter.
2. We haven't had a playoff before, so we don't need one now.

I'm out.

Rock Hard Corn Frog

10/19/2007, 03:09 PM

Leroy Lizard aren't you late for the salad tossing gig at Olive Garden.

Athletes play to WIN. To win Championships. Bob Stoops is here to WIN championships. The education is often paid for because schools want to WIN championships and will offer scholarships to student/athletes that can help them win.

Yea screw the players. What the hell do they know?

Leroy Lizard

10/19/2007, 03:19 PM

I don't, but you seem very intent on putting words in my mouth and then discrediting what I didn't say.

I am glad we agree that we shouldn't institute a playoff simply because players want one. (There may be other reasons for a playoff, but the desires of the players is not a good one.)

Whose life depends on an automobile, telephone, or the internet? How did the human race survive (even prosper) for thousands of years without those things? Ever hear of the Roman Empire? I'm pretty sure they didn't have any of those things. The argument that "it's been this way for a long time and everything is just fine, so there is no need for change" is bogus.

You can't turn the clock back 2000 years and suggest that, since Romans did not need telephones, we don't need them. That's like saying we don't need medicine, jobs, or money, because Neanderthals didn't need them.

The world as it exists today, not 2000 years ago, dictates what is a necessity and what is a luxury. What is a luxury today could be a necessity in the future. And since college football is popular today as it ever has been, I see no reason to elevate a playoff to the necessity level. Clearly, college football will continue to be popular for quite some time regardless of whether a playoff exists.

1. Players don't matter.

No, my argument is that the players' opinions do not necessarily dictate our actions. We can certainly CONSIDER their opinions, but just because they want something doesn't mean we have to give it to them.

2. We haven't had a playoff before, so we don't need one now.

We don't NEED one now if the players' desires are the basis for determining our needs. My statement is fundamentally true, and I pointed out that there is no shortage of athletes wanting to play college football as evidence.