The BCS is complete nonsense this year... [Archive]

soonerpat

11/27/2011, 11:19 PM

rainiersooner

11/27/2011, 11:27 PM

I don't think the BCS is any more of a joke than voting on the winner - i.e., previous system of AP or Coach's polls. In fact, to the extent it combines polls and computers, I think it's an improvement. That being said, it's far inferior to a playoff imo.

Edmond Sooner

11/27/2011, 11:40 PM

The BCS is complete nonsense EVERY year...

There: I fixed it for yah.

hawaii 5-0

11/27/2011, 11:43 PM

There: I fixed it for yah.

Yeppers. I'm so glad they fixed it. (insert baling wire joke here.)

Bring on the Playoff Discussion.

5-0

Sooner5030

11/27/2011, 11:46 PM

Salt City Sooner

11/28/2011, 12:04 AM

Remember the outrage when OU lost the big 12 game to K. State and the system was supposed to be fixed because "You shouldn't be able to play for the MNC if you don't even win your conference"?

Let's see, Alabama doesn't win their division but they should play in the MNC game??

Oregon defeats Stanford and will play for the PAC 10/12 Title, earning it on the field, but the only pac 10 team that might have a shot at the MNC is .. Stanford?

OSU is at the top of the big 12 and they don't deserve a shot according to the national media.. Of course if OU beats them OSU won't deserve it, but they're counted out before they even take the field...

V. Tech will likely win their conference game and they don't get a shot...

The teams that earn it on the field can't get past the national media who have crowned Alabama and LSU co-champions since OU lost to Tech.

What really gets me is the argument that "the BCS allows the regular season to matter but a playoff would make the games in the season less important?"

Really? What games mattered this year once the national media decided they wanted Alabama and LSU to replay.. Even if LSU loses this weekend there is a great chance that they'll play Alabama...

What a joke.
Oregon's lost twice, Stanford only once. It's the risk you take when you schedule a big OOC game & don't win it.

StoopTroup

11/28/2011, 12:09 AM

The BCS had it right at one point but OU kept winning the Big XII and getting into the MNC Game. They keep on fiddling with it because of the pressure they get. They have offically gone to far and I'm not saying that because OU isn't in a better position....it's because they have allowed Bama to be back in it. If you make all these deals to try and get the two best Teams in that are in separate Conferences and some Conference like the SEC accepting Teams who are unhappy in their conferences and the SEC becomes a Clearing House and in effect not only become their own BCS they basically have a huge advantage in getting at least one of their Teams into the MNC every year. If you think folks in the Big XII were unhappy with OU being the one to get in every year....wait until it's just SEC Teams getting in there each year. It won't be long and the NCAA will force them to separate and all these Teams who didn't want the new Teams will be calling foul. Just wait. You'll see. When the Pac12 and the Big10 and the Big XII are left in the cold every year....you'll see how bad an idea it is to let Bama in the MNC.

Blue

11/28/2011, 12:42 AM

I will say though that the BCS sets up nicely for OU. Minus the fact that we give away a few games a year when they are begging us to step up.

I still want an 8 team playoff.

TulsaSooners

11/28/2011, 01:16 AM

LSU and Bama are by far the two best teams, but the whole system is absolutely a disaster. The one thing that I do disagree with is the notion that you should be punished for playing and losing big games. If OU hadn't scheduled LSU OOC they would have had the right to get blasted by them in the MNC rather than in Dallas to start the season. On the other hand, VA Tech plays absolutely nobody and seems to be rewarded, with a 23-3 home loss to Clemson, along with wins by seven or less over East Carolina, Miami, Duke, and UNC. VA Tech would be a .500 team if they were lucky in the SEC.

I look forward to betting big money against VA Tech in their BCS bowl game. I just hate that LSU and Bama will play each other, as I would have bet HUGE money on them against little brother and Michigan, respectively.

kevpks

11/28/2011, 01:18 AM

I look forward to betting big money against VA Tech in their BCS bowl game. I just hate that LSU and Bama will play each other, as I would have bet HUGE money on them against little brother and Michigan, respectively.

I would look forward to that too but the only problem is that they are probably going to play Louisville in the Orange Bowl.

TulsaSooners

11/28/2011, 01:25 AM

I would look forward to that too but the only problem is that they are probably going to play Louisville in the Orange Bowl.

Eeek. What a buzz kill if true! I gladly played Stanford in that one last year (40-12 final), and was hoping for a similar matchup this year. TBH I can't believe that the pollsters have VA Tech over Stanford and OSU at the current moment.

yermom

11/28/2011, 01:43 AM

If Bama makes it in, you can bet there will be more tweaks again.

StoopTroup

11/28/2011, 01:48 AM

If Bama makes it in, you can bet there will be more tweaks again.

No doubt. BTW...I saw ya helping out at the TG. Just didn't get a chance to say hey.

HEY!

LOL

StoopTroup

11/28/2011, 01:52 AM

I will say though that the BCS sets up nicely for OU. Minus the fact that we give away a few games a year when they are begging us to step up.

I still want an 8 team playoff.

Those will still need a lot of stipulations in order to keep it from becoming a situation where 4 Teams from 4 different Conferences don't have to play 4 Teams from the SEC.

It's all of this re-alignment crap that really makes bold statements changes like you just made hard to imagine.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 07:50 AM

Instead of weakening the computers years ago, they should have just changed from "Top 2" to "Top 2 conference champs".

Hot Rod

11/28/2011, 08:11 AM

Alabama has defeated 2 teams in the SEC with a winning record, along with 2 (out of 4) OOC teams with winning records. I can see why their the #2 team.

OSU has defeated 4 teams (possibly 5) in their conference with winning records, along with 2 (out of 3) OOC teams with winning records.

That's my problem with Alabama is not having won their division, and voters overlooking a (hate to say it) a pretty good OSU team, having slipped in OT, just as Bama did. Sure, they played LSU, but they had the chance to win just as OSU did, but didn't have a kicking problem, more of a TO problem.

This will have been the worst BCS title game in history, if they let this continue to be an SEC rematch. I highly doubt that it will have good ratings.

NOVSooner

11/28/2011, 08:38 AM

I think Trotter mentioned this, but think of this scenario:
UGA beats LSU, then you stand the chance of 2 teams playing for the MNC without even winning their own conference!

The gap (.---) between 1-2 and Ok state at 3 is too much imo for it to matter at this point.

TUSooner

11/28/2011, 08:40 AM

OrlandoSooner

11/28/2011, 10:04 AM

Take the "State" and the hideous orange off of OSU's uniforms and they would be #2 right now in the BCS. If you flip their season with OU's we would be ranked much higher than they are.

Face it, the blue bloods of college football (OU, Bama, even LSU) get extra credit for wins than other also ran programs (like OSU, Baylor, etc) do. As a fan of one of the blue bloods, I don't mind it a ton since we will benefit more from it than just about anyone else.

rekamrettuB

11/28/2011, 10:06 AM

Really? What games mattered this year once the national media decided they wanted Alabama and LSU to replay.. Even if LSU loses this weekend there is a great chance that they'll play Alabama...

What a joke.

They didn't decide on a rematch...OU losing, Ok State losing, Oregon losing, Stanford losing, Va Tech losing, etc decided it. What could be really funny is if Bama (who I will be pulling for no doubt) beats LSU. They have identical loss records to each other yet 1 team won the SEC and the other wins the NC. That's when people will have a "damn this can't happen again" revelation.

TUSooner

11/28/2011, 10:16 AM

If the goal of the BCS is to crown "one true champion" the BCS is ultimately no better that the AP. Has there been a year when at least one of the top 2 was not disputed?

rekamrettuB

11/28/2011, 10:28 AM

If the goal of the BCS is to crown "one true champion" the BCS is ultimately no better that the AP. Has there been a year when at least one of the top 2 was not disputed?
2005 comes to mind. 2009 wasn't disputed much but I guess Cincy would have a dog in that fight pre bowl game. 2002. 2010. More times than not there is dispute. It might be what makes college football so interesting. There's always been debate...even prior to BCS or the Bowl Coalition games.

madillsoonerfan5353

11/28/2011, 10:29 AM

I think that oSu has a good shot to get in. I don't see OU beating them this year. This team is to inconsistent to win in Stoolwater, IMO the wheels have came completely off. When the only way you can score in the red zone or get convert 3rd and inches is to bring in the " Belldozer" then you have problems. I don't even want to get into the D. Neg Spek away. Just how I see it.

BoulderSooner79

11/28/2011, 10:29 AM

If the goal of the BCS is to crown "one true champion" the BCS is ultimately no better that the AP. Has there been a year when at least one of the top 2 was not disputed?

Auburn/Oregon last year and UT/USC were probably the closest.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 10:32 AM

Remember the outrage when OU lost the big 12 game to K. State and the system was supposed to be fixed because "You shouldn't be able to play for the MNC if you don't even win your conference"?

Let's see, Alabama doesn't win their division but they should play in the MNC game?

Frankly, I think the BCS is correct and they were correct in 2003. When looking at the body of work we were the most deserving team even after that disaster in KC.

I would say the same for LSU and Alabama. Their body of work supports them being #1 and #2. I don't like it one bit but I agree with it.

I don't agree with the argument that you have to win your conference or division in order to go to the national title game. For starters, you could easily conceive of a situation where a one loss team did not win their conference but every other team in the nation had 2 or 3 losses. Conferences are a group of schools who agree to play each other. Their championship is outside the realm of the NCAA (although so is the BCS really) and should not play a major role in determining a national title (or who gets into a playoff).

The conference championship games do at times present a problem. This year it's actually not as big of a problem because LSU will get in win or lose. However, if LSU had one loss and was ranked #1 or #2 and they lost to Georgia and Alabama got in instead of LSU that would be a serious flaw. (A similar situation had a chance of happening years ago between OU and UT.) It would hardly be fair for LSU to be penalized for playing in a game when Alabama didn't even earn the right to play in the game.

I don't blame the BCS for that. The conferences set up these potential problems by introducing championship games. The BCS didn't introduce these games and it can only deal with them as best as it can.

TUSooner

11/28/2011, 10:32 AM

Auburn/Oregon last year and UT/USC were probably the closest.

I was thinkin maybe UT/USC was closest. Honestly, unless OU is in it, I pretty much forget who won within a year (unless I have to hear about LSU's latest "home game" win time and time again.)

rekamrettuB

11/28/2011, 10:37 AM

I don't agree with the argument that you have to win your conference or division in order to go to the national title game. For starters, you could easily conceive of a situation where a one loss team did not win their conference but every other team in the nation had 2 or 3 losses. Conferences are a group of schools who agree to play each other. Their championship is outside the realm of the NCAA (although so is the BCS really) and should not play a major role in determining a national title (or who gets into a playoff).

This was my exact argument when they were trying to change it. I said take OU with their 1 loss being to KState but instead of a couple 1 loss teams behind them let's say that there wasn't another team with less than 3 losses. I know it was an extreme example but it could exist.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 10:47 AM

it is impossible to find the "best" two teams out of 110.

What is best? Those that have performed the best over a season or those that are playing the best in december? How do you gather enough information to determine either?.....each team only plays 12 other teams.

Coaches are 1/3 and Harris Voters are 1/3

2/3s is determined by people

it cannot be perfect

Agree. There just isn't enough games played, too few actual cross-conference games, and too many teams to definitively say who are the best two.

That's why I favor a playoff. I'd prefer to keep it at 8 teams. I don't think it would be hard to identify the few teams who really are deserving to have a shot at the title. You will have arguments about the bubble teams but leaving out #9 (who believes they should be #8) is much less of a sin than leaving out #3 (who believes they should be #2 or #1).

Also, too many people argue that the regular season excitement would be ruined with a playoff. I completely disagree. OSU, Boise State, and VT would all still be playing for a title at this point. The OU/OSU game becomes much more meaningful. In fact, with an 8 team playoff we would still be in the hunt - although maybe not deservingly so.

oSuJeff1997

11/28/2011, 11:00 AM

I would say the same for LSU and Alabama. Their body of work supports them being #1 and #2. I don't like it one bit but I agree with it.

LSU's body of work absolutely supports them being #1, but have you really looked at Alabama's schedule and who they've beaten?

If - and this is a BIG if - OSU beats OU this weekend, here's how OSU's and Alabama's wins would compare:

Best Win (OSU - Bama): #10 Oklahoma (9-3) - #8 Arkansas (10-2)
2nd: #11 Kansas State (9-2) - #21 Penn State (9-3)
3rd: #17 Baylor (8-3) - Auburn (7-5)
4th: #22 Texas (7-4) - Florida (6-6)
5th: #25 Missouri (7-5) - Miss State (6-6)

If we beat OU and Texas beats Baylor, Oklahoma State will have wins over 5 ranked opponents while Alabama only has 2.

Obviously, Iowa State is a worse loss than LSU, but at least it was on the road. But OSU will have also won the 1st or 2nd best conference in the country, while Alabama will not have even won their own division.

I'm not saying that OSU is better than Alabama... but when you really look at the "body of work", OSU will have a better argument than Alabama IF they beat OU.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 11:04 AM

This was my exact argument when they were trying to change it. I said take OU with their 1 loss being to KState but instead of a couple 1 loss teams behind them let's say that there wasn't another team with less than 3 losses. I know it was an extreme example but it could exist.

I have other reasons why I think the requirement to be a conference champion is absurd.

1. It puts independents at an advantage since they don't have a conference to lose.

2. It puts power conference at a disadvantage.

3. The generally accepted rule that having a "good loss" is better than a "bad loss" contradicts the rules for defining a conference champion which are based on head-to-head and generally rewards a team for having a bad loss over a team for having a good loss. If you make being a conference champion a prerequisite you are essentially formalizing contradictory arguments in the selection process.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect but I still say we need to look at the entire body of work and not confuse conference affiliations and conference tie-breaker rules with the rules to select #1 and #2.

oSuJeff1997

11/28/2011, 11:15 AM

Nothing is ever going to be perfect but I still say we need to look at the entire body of work and not confuse conference affiliations and conference tie-breaker rules with the rules to select #1 and #2.

If "body of work" was what matters, then OSU would be the clear #2 with a Bedlam win.

However, that's not the case.

What really matters when sorting out 1-loss teams:

Conference affiliation (SEC = better; regardless of what the stats say)
When you lost (The earlier the better)
Name recognition
Who you lost to (Unless it's in the SEC)
Amount of time ESPN talking heads spend campaigning for you (the Andrew Luck/SEC effect)

What apparently doesn't matter:

Actual body work for the entire season.
Number of wins against top 25 teams.
Whether or not you win your conference (or division).

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 11:18 AM

LSU's body of work absolutely supports them being #1, but have you really looked at Alabama's schedule and who they've beaten?

If - and this is a BIG if - OSU beats OU this weekend, here's how OSU's and Alabama's wins would compare:

Best Win (OSU - Bama): #10 Oklahoma (9-3) - #8 Arkansas (10-2)
2nd: #11 Kansas State (9-2) - #21 Penn State (9-3)
3rd: #17 Baylor (8-3) - Auburn (7-5)
4th: #22 Texas (7-4) - Florida (6-6)
5th: #25 Missouri (7-5) - Miss State (6-6)

If we beat OU and Texas beats Baylor, Oklahoma State will have wins over 5 ranked opponents while Alabama only has 2.

Obviously, Iowa State is a worse loss than LSU, but at least it was on the road. But OSU will have also won the 1st or 2nd best conference in the country, while Alabama will not have even won their own division.

I'm not saying that OSU is better than Alabama... but when you really look at the "body of work", OSU will have a better argument than Alabama IF they beat OU.

You make good points although I will point out that one indirect component of your argument is that having a "bad loss" is better than a "good loss" because that means you have more "good wins" (schedule strength being fairly equal). This contradicts the common argument that a "bad loss" is worse than a "good loss".

I've been on my soapbox about this recently as you can look at it from two angles and come to different conclusions. Florida fans were quick to point out their quality wins the year they lost to Ole Miss yet I'm sure the same fans have made the opposite arguments in the past.

I do think that fact that Bama lost in OT definitely makes your argument weaker although I think it's entirely fair to question whether Alabama has beaten any really good teams. (I learned all I needed to know about Arkansas in the A&M game.) That being said, my point was less about whether Bama was deserving and more about how I think a conference championship should never be a prerequisite.

oSuJeff1997

11/28/2011, 11:33 AM

You make good points although I will point out that one indirect component of your argument is that having a "bad loss" is better than a "good loss" because that means you have more "good wins" (schedule strength being fairly equal). This contradicts the common argument that a "bad loss" is worse than a "good loss".

I've been on my soapbox about this recently as you can look at it from two angles and come to different conclusions. Florida fans were quick to point out their quality wins the year they lost to Ole Miss yet I'm sure the same fans have made the opposite arguments in the past.

I do think that fact that Bama lost in OT definitely makes your argument weaker although I think it's entirely fair to question whether Alabama has beaten any really good teams. (I learned all I needed to know about Arkansas in the A&M game.) That being said, my point was less about whether Bama was deserving and more about how I think a conference championship should never be a prerequisite.

Yeah I don't think a conference championship should be a prerequisite. Hard and fast rules like that will come back and bite you at some point.

But when there's a situation like this year, when you could have the conference champion of the #1 or #2 rated conference left out in favor of a team that didn't win their own division... well, that's a problem, IMO.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 11:38 AM

If "body of work" was what matters, then OSU would be the clear #2 with a Bedlam win.

However, that's not the case.

What really matters when sorting out 1-loss teams:

Conference affiliation (SEC = better; regardless of what the stats say)

What apparently doesn't matter:

This is the one that really irks me. The assumption is that SEC proved themselves more than others. This simply isn't always true. Georgia has played a very very weak SEC schedule. If they were in the national title discussion (especially if they hadn't played BSU) then their schedule strength would absolutely not support the benefit of the doubt that they would get for being in the SEC.

In addition, a tough OOC schedule can easily make up for the schedule strength of an SEC schedule.

Bama and LSU actually played a decent OOC game each and a strong conference schedule but that isn't always the case.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 12:01 PM

diegosooner

11/28/2011, 12:01 PM

If the goal is for #1 to play #2 for the NC, then the BCS is successful this year.

badger

11/28/2011, 12:04 PM

Alas, it's everyone's fault for losing. Bammer just chose the best team to lose to among all of us losers.

(somewhere, a Cougar in Houston is crying)

Jacie

11/28/2011, 12:15 PM

Though I am in favor of scrapping the BCS (basically, an organization of shills and money grubbing con artists) and instituting a playoff (i.e. colleges take control of their own destiny and the money), it would only be viable if the regular season were pared back to 10 games and the 100+ teams that can realistically expect to never make the playoff would not go for it.

What has happened with the 12-game regular season and bowl games is that college athletes play too many games, resulting in more injuries. Think NFL players haven't taken notice of this? Look at what they experience with a 16-game season and playoff (3 to 4 more games for the SuperBowl teams). The NFLPA barely kept the owners from expanding the regular season to 18 games and they will probably be hit with this again and again as more games = more money.

Concerning this season, I don't see how even the people who embrace the BCS can be happy at the prospect of LSU vs. Bama II. The system is totally jobbed, not just from year to year but in this case, at the end of a season to obtain the bowl honchos desired result (not the same thing as what the overwhelming majority of the fans would choose).

For those who want the whole house of cards to come down, the results of this season could be a blessing in disguise.

rekamrettuB

11/28/2011, 12:16 PM

I can sort of see your point on the conference champion biting in the butt but I'd rather have that aspect than two teams from the same conference. Just looking back over the BCS years, it would have done a better job of solving past issues than weakening the objective computer side of the selector. Afterall, if you're not good enough to win your conference, why do you deserve to be a National Champion?

Because you are better than all the other conference champions. Like I said above, the bad deal will be if Bama wins. That's when the craziness of it will all come down. A rematch in this situation is horrible. Take the Cowboys and Giants the year the Giants won the Super Bowl. Dallas beats them twice in the regular season, losses once in the playoffs and gets eliminated. Same with OU basketball in '88. Didn't they beat KU twice that year and lose to them once yet the team that went 1-2 vs OU walked away with the trophy.

And in a playoff guess who is included and eligible to win NCs? Teams that didn't win their conference. See UConn of last year.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 12:24 PM

Because you are better than all the other conference champions. Like I said above, the bad deal will be if Bama wins. That's when the craziness of it will all come down. A rematch in this situation is horrible. Take the Cowboys and Giants the year the Giants won the Super Bowl. Dallas beats them twice in the regular season, losses once in the playoffs and gets eliminated. Same with OU basketball in '88. Didn't they beat KU twice that year and lose to them once yet the team that went 1-2 vs OU walked away with the trophy.

And in a playoff guess who is included and eligible to win NCs? Teams that didn't win their conference. See UConn of last year.

I'm not arguing for a playoff at all for one.

Second, I would rather worry about what teams deserves to be there than the ones we think are the best. As far as the BCS championship is concerned, that should only be conference champions. If the AP wants to vote someone else #1 when all is said and done, so be it.

StoopTroup

11/28/2011, 12:26 PM

Afterall, if you're not good enough to win your conference, why do you deserve to be a National Champion?

Winner!

It's why all of this BCS stuff was invented. Is was so that the old major Bowls could share in the profits of what hosting a National Championship brings to them and a guarantee that they host it every four years. Then it's made so that Conference Champions will play for it all....not some repeat of a Game that had already been played. We of course broke that rule by losing to K-State and played LSU and pissed off the entire World...for that what was a pretty close game was declared a blow out.

They then made changes.

They keep making changes.

It is never perfect until it's perfect for the two Teams that get to play in it. When a Coach like Stoops reads the rules at the beginning of the year and makes it in even though some folks don't think we should ever be in one again....it pisses the World off. When we drop a Game to a Boise State in a Minor Bowl it becomes news for the ages.

We had a shot this year again. We blew it. It will be tougher for us next year especially if we lose this next game or a Bowl Game but I'm still excited to see our guys finish. They have won a Bowl Game every year with Landry at QB. That's something not every QB at OU can say. Maybe this isn't his year without Ryan but if he does do it....I think it says a lot about Landry as a QB.

rekamrettuB

11/28/2011, 12:32 PM

I'm not arguing for a playoff at all for one.

Second, I would rather worry about what teams deserves to be there than the ones we think are the best. As far as the BCS championship is concerned, that should only be conference champions. If the AP wants to vote someone else #1 when all is said and done, so be it.

The playoff statement wasn't directed at you. Just pointing it out for the playoff people. But let's take what you say that only "conference champions" should be eligible. Let's take this year for example. Look at this week's matchups:

Pac XII: Oregon vs UCLA
Big X: Wiscy vs Mich St
ACC: Clemson vs Va Tech
Big XII: OU vs Ok State
SEC: UGA vs LSU

Winners:

UCLA
Wiscy
Clemson
OU
UGA

Now, who goes to the BCS championship game?

OU_Sooners75

11/28/2011, 12:32 PM

oudavid1

11/28/2011, 12:33 PM

oudavid1

11/28/2011, 12:36 PM

BCS Ratification:

No conference affiliation to the BCS Bowls. No more Automatic Qualifiers outside of the top 8.
Can only be a conference champion to be in BCS top 4. How can you not call yourself a conference champion but a national champion?
No limits on number from each conference.
Removal of human voting. create or find 5 other computer rankings and average them out for a ranking.
Add a plus one in a 4 team playoff. 1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3. Winners play in the BCS title game.

I like all but the last one. What do you think of this?

You get rid of BCS championship game and go back to 4 BCS bowls. If there are <= 2 undefeated teams left, they play for title. If like in 2010 with Oregon, Auburn, and TCU...you would play Auburn/Oregon like you did, but if TCU wins, you have a conditional +1 game a week or 2 later to decide championship. But only if 3rd team wins. Crazy, but I like it....what say you?

OU_Sooners75

11/28/2011, 12:37 PM

No one here can say they thought the New York Giants were the better team in the Super Bowl with their lucky play to save them.

No one can say LSU & Alabama are not the two most consistent teams in college football this year.

If LSU wins the title, I dont see a problem. If Houston won it, I would.

David....I know you are pro SEC....but....

It isn't about LSU. This is about the media always saying the season is the playoff.

Well, Bama had their shot and lost to LSU. Yes, other teams have lost, but not all of them to LSU.

That said, after 2003 (I know u were a young'un then) the media was crying out about OU not being the conference champion, yet they got to play for the national championship. So they demanded change.

Well, here we are, Bama is not the SEC champion yet they want a rematch. hmmmmm.....

And yes, there are arguments against Bama being #2. Like a **** poor schedule. Playing only 5 total teams with winning records and 1 FCS team. They have beaten 2 currently ranked teams...Penn State (who just got smoked by Wisky) and Arkansas.

OSU has or will play 8 bowl eligible teams (includes OU) with no FCS teams. They have also played and beat 4 currently ranked BCS teams (Baylor, Missouri, Texas, and Kansas State). If they beat OU, that will make 5.

sooner_born_1960

11/28/2011, 12:39 PM

BCS Ratification:

Can only be a conference champion to be in BCS top 4. How can you not call yourself a conference champion but a national champion?

No other sport has a problem with a conference non-champion winning their national/world championship.

OU_Sooners75

11/28/2011, 12:44 PM

I like all but the last one. What do you think of this?

You get rid of BCS championship game and go back to 4 BCS bowls. If there are <= 2 undefeated teams left, they play for title. If like in 2010 with Oregon, Auburn, and TCU...you would play Auburn/Oregon like you did, but if TCU wins, you have a conditional +1 game a week or 2 later to decide championship. But only if 3rd team wins. Crazy, but I like it....what say you?

Yeah...I don't like that. Though Houston is undefeated, do you really think they deserve a shot? They have played a bunch of no bodies.

That said, the best way to do it is not to reward not getting beat...it is to reward the entire body of work. 1vs4 2vs3 winner play regardless...and no team can be a top 4 ranked team (at end of regular season) without being a conference champion.

Who is to say the Big 12 is not the best conference right now? Who is to say that the winner of the conference would not beat LSU or Bama? But with your idea, that means LSU would get the Sugar against the likes of Houston or Big East. Then go undefeated. Say OSU wins the Fiesta against Stanford...who is to say OSU couldn't beat LSU? Hell, who is to say OU couldn't (though they blew their chance this year).

4 team playoff or more. The BCS can be used at the seeding and selection of those 4+ teams.

StoopTroup

11/28/2011, 12:45 PM

Crazy, but I like it....what say you?

I like your consistency.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 12:47 PM

The playoff statement wasn't directed at you. Just pointing it out for the playoff people. But let's take what you say that only "conference champions" should be eligible. Let's take this year for example. Look at this week's matchups:

Pac XII: Oregon vs UCLA
Big X: Wiscy vs Mich St
ACC: Clemson vs Va Tech
Big XII: OU vs Ok State
SEC: UGA vs LSU

Winners:

UCLA
Wiscy
Clemson
OU
UGA

Now, who goes to the BCS championship game?

LOL, would be quite funny (and very unlikely) to see all that happen. And to answer your question, the championship game would likely be Houston vs OU. Not that I would have a problem with that but let's see how the weekend plays out before we start making up absurd scenarios that are not likely to happen and instead think about what is likely to happen. In fact, looking back, making a conference champion a requirement would be beneficial (at least to what most people were complaining about) every time it mattered and never would lead to the unlikely scenario like which you bring up.

oudavid1

11/28/2011, 12:47 PM

David....I know you are pro SEC....but....

It isn't about LSU. This is about the media always saying the season is the playoff.

Well, Bama had their shot and lost to LSU. Yes, other teams have lost, but not all of them to LSU.

That said, after 2003 (I know u were a young'un then) the media was crying out about OU not being the conference champion, yet they got to play for the national championship. So they demanded change.

Well, here we are, Bama is not the SEC champion yet they want a rematch. hmmmmm.....

And yes, there is arguments against Bama being #2. Like a **** poor schedule. Playing only 5 total teams with winning records and 1 FCS team. They have beaten 2 currently ranked teams...Penn State (who just got smoked by Wisky) and Arkansas.

OSU has or will play 8 bowl eligible teams (includes OU) with no FCS teams. They have also played and beat 4 currently ranked BCS teams (Baylor, Missouri, Texas, and Kansas State). If they beat OU, that will make 5.

Your right, i was young. And I didnt know that about '03, if what you say is true about the media saying we didnt deserve it...but I do remember OU also having the best loss out of the other teams, but in that case you have an excellent point. I just feel that this year, LSU is the best team. And I believe if you take SEC fans out of the SEC, we could all be pro-SEC.

I guess my feeling is, Alabama is the only team that could compete with LSU this year. I would love for OU or anyone else, but I dont feel that other teams have earned it. I just want LSU to win to the end result is satisfactory with most. Also, someone tweeted yesterday a quote from Nick Saban from I believe '03, that said "if you dont win your conference, you shouldnt play for the title."

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 12:48 PM

No other sport has a problem with a conference non-champion winning their national/world championship.

But yet college football is better than these other sports so why do we want it to be like them?

OU_Sooners75

11/28/2011, 12:48 PM

No other sport has a problem with a conference non-champion winning their national/world championship.

And this is no other sport.

Unless a full blown playoff (8 or more teams) occurs, then conference champions should only be allowed to play for the national championship.

StoopTroup

11/28/2011, 12:49 PM

But yet college football is better than these other sports so why do we want it to be like them?

Wow! You're on fire today which ever one you are today. :D.

sooner_born_1960

11/28/2011, 12:49 PM

That's just stupid.

oudavid1

11/28/2011, 12:50 PM

But yet college football is better than these other sports so why do we want it to be like them?

Like

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 01:31 PM

No one here can say they thought the New York Giants were the better team in the Super Bowl with their lucky play to save them.

No one can say LSU & Alabama are not the two most consistent teams in college football this year.

If LSU wins the title, I dont see a problem. If Houston won it, I would.

You'd have a problem with an undefeated team winning 2 or 3 games against very good competition in a trournament format being a national champion? That seems like an odd stance to me.

I'm also getting sick of the Giants reference. Listen, with an 8 team playoff the NCAA equivalent of the New York Giants are not getting into the playoff. We're most likely talking about 0-3 undefeated teams, a few one loss teams, and 0-2 two loss teams.

If we went with the current BCS standings, there is one team with two losses (Arkansas) who would get into an 8 team playoff and they lost to #1 and #2. OU wouldn't. Oregon wouldn't.

Does that sound like a NY Giants scenario to you?

yermom

11/28/2011, 01:34 PM

would an 8 team playoff be top 8 teams or involve conference champs?

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 01:38 PM

You'd have a problem with an undefeated team winning 2 or 3 games against very good competition in a trournament format being a national champion? That seems like an odd stance to me.

I'm also getting sick of the Giants reference. Listen, with an 8 team playoff the NCAA equivalent of the New York Giants are not getting into the playoff. We're most likely talking about 0-3 undefeated teams, a few one loss teams, and 0-2 two loss teams.

If we went with the current BCS standings, there is one team with two losses (Arkansas) who would get into an 8 team playoff and they lost to #1 and #2. OU wouldn't. Oregon wouldn't.

Does that sound like a NY Giants scenario to you?

To your first paragraph, I wouldn't have any problem calling them a champion of a post season tournament. Would take issue with referring to them as a champion of the season if like the Giants situation mentioned.

NCAA isn't going to stick with 8 teams if they ever got to a tourney style post season. I can see a 16 team tourney working... but not an 8 team. They my try 8 at some point but they'll quickly go to 16 because 8 is not going to make both the current AQ schools AND the current non-AQ schools happy.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 01:41 PM

I like all but the last one. What do you think of this?

You get rid of BCS championship game and go back to 4 BCS bowls. If there are <= 2 undefeated teams left, they play for title. If like in 2010 with Oregon, Auburn, and TCU...you would play Auburn/Oregon like you did, but if TCU wins, you have a conditional +1 game a week or 2 later to decide championship. But only if 3rd team wins. Crazy, but I like it....what say you?

Why would Auburn/Oregon be forced to win two games against contenders while TCU only has to win one game against a contender and one against a non-contender? Nobody would go for that.

I'm actually not against some sort of variable length playoff. I think it's absurd that many teams don't control their own destiny (or are for all practical purposes ruled out) before the first ball has been kicked. If I had my way, every undefeated team would get an automatic bid to the playoffs. If one or two teams are undefeated and not in the top 8 automatic play-in games would kick in.

You might need a safeguard to keep an independent from scheduling 11 patsies but I don't see that as a legitimate concern. If you had to you could put a bare minimum SOS requirement in there.

But, anyway, I'm not sure many would go for that idea.

Position Limit

11/28/2011, 01:42 PM

lsu's reward for beating bama is to play bama again. so flawed. i truly hope lsu loses to georgia so we can watch a rematch of lsu and bama. 2 teams that didnt win their confrence.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 01:51 PM

would an 8 team playoff be top 8 teams or involve conference champs?

I would not involve conference champs. It's just too messy. Not every team is in a conference. Conference strength and size varies significantly. (The SEC is definitely not going for a tournament where only conference champions play each other and I don't blame them.) Some years a conference champion can have 3 or 4 losses.

If you end up with four superconferences and want a four team playoff you still have many of the problems listed above and one big one. This would be viewed as a fake or partial championship as teams who are not in superconferences are excluded. (At least now they aren't excluded by rule even if they are by the practical application of the rule.)

Unless the NCAA actually started assigning teams to conferences (keeping the strength and size fairly consistent) I don't think the conference standings should play any role in selecting teams for a playoff. I don't think I have to worry about it either as the various conferences would never agree to a format of only conference champions playing each other. Way too many issues for it to happen...

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 02:02 PM

and no team can be a top 4 ranked team (at end of regular season) without being a conference champion.

As our resident poke pointed out, if you make a hard rule like that you'll sooner or later end up with undesirable results.

In addition, you're introducing one automatic disqualification that couldn't apply to independents (like Notre Dame). You're telling a team in a conference you had to meet the following criteria:

1. Be in the top 4 (or maybe 5 if another team is disqualified due to rule #2).
2. Be a conference champion.

For Notre Dame, well they just have to fulfill rule #1. Is that fair to you?

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 02:21 PM

As our resident poke pointed out, if you make a hard rule like that you'll sooner or later end up with undesirable results.

In addition, you're introducing one automatic disqualification that couldn't apply to independents (like Notre Dame). You're telling a team in a conference you had to meet the following criteria:

1. Be in the top 4 (or maybe 5 if another team is disqualified due to rule #2).
2. Be a conference champion.

For Notre Dame, well they just have to fulfill rule #1. Is that fair to you?

For those of us that want the BCS championship participants to be conference champions, we're getting undesirable results more often than any scenario otherwise.

Also, there's already a Notre Dame exception rule. There would be another in this case so long as there are independents.

delhalew

11/28/2011, 02:26 PM

6 conference champs plus 2 wild card. Easy. Even better...5 conference champs (eliminate Big East) plus 3 wild card.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 02:32 PM

6 conference champs plus 2 wild card. Easy. Even better...5 conference champs (eliminate Big East) plus 3 wild card.

The current AQ schools won't like it because if there's only going to be 8 spots, they'll want the rules such that will essentially give them all 8 spots. The current non-AQ schools won't like it because they won't feel there's enough access granted to them. Both sides have to like it and I don't see any 8 team model making both sides happy.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 02:37 PM

6 conference champs plus 2 wild card. Easy. Even better...5 conference champs (eliminate Big East) plus 3 wild card.

Problem is, these would be much more likely to introduce the NY Giants scenario that so many hate. Some years one or two BCS conference champions are barely rated.

oSuJeff1997

11/28/2011, 02:38 PM

If the goal is for #1 to play #2 for the NC, then the BCS is successful this year.

Huh?

Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy? The #1 and #2 teams always play for the BCS title.

The problem is that there are hardly ever clear-cut #1 and #2 teams.

delhalew

11/28/2011, 02:43 PM

Problem is, these would be much more likely to introduce the NY Giants scenario that so many hate. Some years one or two BCS conference champions are barely rated.

With so few teams, I doubt it. If that's such a concern, stipulate that the aforementioned conference champ must be ranked in the top 10 or 15, or be replaced by a wildcard with the highest ranking.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 02:45 PM

The current AQ schools won't like it because if there's only going to be 8 spots, they'll want the rules such that will essentially give them all 8 spots. The current non-AQ schools won't like it because they won't feel there's enough access granted to them. Both sides have to like it and I don't see any 8 team model making both sides happy.

That's one of many reasons I'm for taking conference affiliation/results completely out of the equation. Have an objective formula that takes into consideration wins, losses, and SOS. Tweak the formula so the results are similar to what we expect from polls/BCS/tradition - teams are havily punished for losses and rewarded for SOS.

BCS conferences would like the fact that SOS still plays a major role. In fact, most BCS conferences (outside the BE) would not suffer one bit by losing the automatic qualifier as most would have at least one team in the top 8. Non-BCS conference would like it because the system is transparent and completely fair. They'd have a small hurdle overcoming the SOS component but they would be happy to be treated equally.

delhalew

11/28/2011, 02:53 PM

Why not remove conference affiliations and take the champions?

The key is to remove as much humqn bias as possible. It's always our prejudices and our "eye test" that **** up everything.

badger

11/28/2011, 02:57 PM

delhalew

11/28/2011, 03:02 PM

Removing non-champs from the equation might have another desired effect: Less big huge conferences. Would 16 teams want to be in the SEC if only one could compete each year for a title, no matter what?

I feel like you need a couple wild cards to grab the teams that slip through the cracks, but it would be nice if it had the effect you describe.

Salt City Sooner

11/28/2011, 03:21 PM

Bottom line: The BCS is STILL a voting contest, just like the AP and the old UPI. They toss in some computer **** to add an illusory whiff of objectivity, but it's still based on the wholly subjective opinions -- and prejudices -- of human voters.

That said, LSU or Bama arguably would beat any other teams out there, in my wholly subjective opinion. :biggrin:

Also - If oSu beats us, they should go ahead of Bama. Won't happen though, even if oSu wins, the voters are too enamored with the SEC to put anyone else up there.
2008 says hello. Most people forget this, but Mack's incessant whining/banner flying campaign actually paid off with the human voters, who still gave a slight overall edge to the 'horns, even after OU won in Stillwater. The computers didn't listen, however, & gave OU a much more substantial nod, thus sending OU to the CCG ( & eventually MNC) game.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 03:39 PM

That's one of many reasons I'm for taking conference affiliation/results completely out of the equation. Have an objective formula that takes into consideration wins, losses, and SOS. Tweak the formula so the results are similar to what we expect from polls/BCS/tradition - teams are havily punished for losses and rewarded for SOS.

BCS conferences would like the fact that SOS still plays a major role. In fact, most BCS conferences (outside the BE) would not suffer one bit by losing the automatic qualifier as most would have at least one team in the top 8. Non-BCS conference would like it because the system is transparent and completely fair. They'd have a small hurdle overcoming the SOS component but they would be happy to be treated equally.

You're right that simply taking the top 8 wouldn't have a large effect on the big conferences most years but that doesn't mean they'll be satisfied without the guarantee. Just cause it makes sense to you doesn't mean they'll be willing to take it. I think they'll expect a guarantee which will make the lesser conferences unhappy. 16, with all conferences represented plus highest ranking at-larges is the only way they'll both be happy and is the playoff format we'll end up with when it happens.

badger

11/28/2011, 03:43 PM

I feel like you need a couple wild cards to grab the teams that slip through the cracks, but it would be nice if it had the effect you describe.

I am not sure that it dissuades teams already part of those conferences, but it might make teams think twice before joining up with more powerhouses... I think that might have impacted our decision to stay in the Big 12 rather than pursue the SEC or the Pac 12.

Very few times recently has the Big 12 run into the problem the Big Ten and the SEC have had with having too many quality teams for the BCS to take. Perhaps 2008 when we had our little trifecta and Tech was left out, or 2007 when KU and MU were fighting for North supremacy while OU was pwning the South.

oudavid1

11/28/2011, 05:36 PM

SicEmBaylor

11/28/2011, 05:47 PM

I'm moving SLIGHTLY closer to favoring a play-off system, but I have a ways to go. I much prefer the traditional bowl system, but there really is no good way of determining a national championship without a playoff. Still, I just really hate to see the bowl system destroyed. It's part of what makes college football so great.

What about eliminating the BCS, retaining the current bowl system, and then instituting a playoff of all the bowl winners?

oudavid1

11/28/2011, 05:50 PM

I'm moving SLIGHTLY closer to favoring a play-off system, but I have a ways to go. I much prefer the traditional bowl system, but there really is no good way of determining a national championship without a playoff. Still, I just really hate to see the bowl system destroyed. It's part of what makes college football so great.

Well I think you keep the smaller bowls no mater what. But like a 4 or 8 team playoff is a decent move.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 05:59 PM

Good luck with that 8 team playoff...

Russ

11/28/2011, 07:25 PM

Goals
1) Make the regular season mean something
2) Make ALL losses mean something (if you just have the conference champion in the tourney, then all non-conference games are worthless)
3) Make strength of schedule mean something.

Assumptions
1) All conferences have a conference championship game.
2) The Big East Does expand to at least 30+ teams and has a 2 game playoff to determine the champion. This is for all of our mid-majors
3) The Big 12 expands to at least 12 teams, and has a championship game.

Ok, now the 6 conference champions make it into the tourney with 2 at large bids.

The at large bids are for the best 2 teams that did not win the tourney

So far so simple, conference games mean something however all non-conference games would be against middle Tennessee state or north Texas.

The next thing would be give points for "quality wins" against any top25 teams. The current BCS formula would be modified to take subtract your losses by quality wins (i.e. you are Texas, you have 2 losses and zero wins against quality opponents, while if you are OU you have 1 win against KS, and 1 loss for a net of zero.) The tweaking would also have at least 20% of your points from strength of schedule.

This would get people to schedule more quality non conference games like LSU vs Oregon, and (and this is a big one), it gives quality conferences (SEC) the chance at more than 1 entry into the tourney, while somewhat punishing the weak ACC/Big East and other conferences.

This still makes losses critical
This makes quality wins desirable and more games against potential top 25 teams.
This makes conference games critical
This gives the mid-majors a way into the tourney
This gives teams like LSU or Bama (or Arkansas) a way into the tourney

With 32 teams in the Big East, 14 in the ACC/SEC and 12 in the Big10/12/Pac12 you have 96 teams overall that have the chance to make it in.

Tell me what you think?

OU_Sooners75

11/28/2011, 07:26 PM

Why would Auburn/Oregon be forced to win two games against contenders while TCU only has to win one game against a contender and one against a non-contender? Nobody would go for that.

I'm actually not against some sort of variable length playoff. I think it's absurd that many teams don't control their own destiny (or are for all practical purposes ruled out) before the first ball has been kicked. If I had my way, every undefeated team would get an automatic bid to the playoffs. If one or two teams are undefeated and not in the top 8 automatic play-in games would kick in.

You might need a safeguard to keep an independent from scheduling 11 patsies but I don't see that as a legitimate concern. If you had to you could put a bare minimum SOS requirement in there.

But, anyway, I'm not sure many would go for that idea.

Again...why go with automatics when talking about undefeated teams? Then you will see the Sunbelt scheduling FCS teams as non conference games (instead of BCS AQ teams) and hope they can go through their conference undefeated.

Instead of adding the words undefeated (what happens if no team is undefeated) make it where ALL conference champions get an automatic bid and then have play in game for the otehr 5 teams to fill a 16 team playoff?

If you are not a member of a conference then you must be in the top 16 and have to play in a playoff game, unless that team is ranked in the top 2.

soonercastor

11/28/2011, 07:47 PM

If OU hadn't scheduled LSU OOC

**** you for calling Oregon OU

Sooner5030

11/28/2011, 08:18 PM

yermom

11/28/2011, 09:01 PM

32 teams means no byes unless something strange happens

Sooner5030

11/28/2011, 09:12 PM

32 teams means no byes unless something strange happens

sorry...meant 32 team bracket with 28 teams...top four get a bye.

BoulderSooner79

11/28/2011, 09:17 PM

I can't call the BCS complete non-sense this year because it hasn't played out. The media has played it out because they know we are suckers for reading/watching anything BCS related right up until the last minute. But I suspect it will play out like most years with plenty of controversy (and ratings). We are feeding the system with our interest.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 09:44 PM

What about eliminating the BCS, retaining the current bowl system, and then instituting a playoff of all the bowl winners?

Are you saying retain the current bowl structure? That means Oregon plays Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl for a shot at the playoffs. Meanwhile Iowa State plays Mississippi State in the Independence Bowl for their own shot at the playoffs?

Damn, man, that's some upside down seeding there.

Sabanball

11/28/2011, 09:51 PM

Remember the outrage when OU lost the big 12 game to K. State and the system was supposed to be fixed because "You shouldn't be able to play for the MNC if you don't even win your conference"?

Let's see, Alabama doesn't win their division but they should play in the MNC game??

Oregon defeats Stanford and will play for the PAC 10/12 Title, earning it on the field, but the only pac 10 team that might have a shot at the MNC is .. Stanford?

OSU is at the top of the big 12 and they don't deserve a shot according to the national media.. Of course if OU beats them OSU won't deserve it, but they're counted out before they even take the field...

V. Tech will likely win their conference game and they don't get a shot...

The teams that earn it on the field can't get past the national media who have crowned Alabama and LSU co-champions since OU lost to Tech.

What really gets me is the argument that "the BCS allows the regular season to matter but a playoff would make the games in the season less important?"

Really? What games mattered this year once the national media decided they wanted Alabama and LSU to replay.. Even if LSU loses this weekend there is a great chance that they'll play Alabama...

What a joke.

I don't understand your outrage--because I didn't hear it back when you guys got ran out of arrowhead by K-State. YOUR team set the precedent for what is happening this year, perhaps two times over if somehow Georgia can upset LSU, because the tigers are in the game no matter what.

I'll admit, the BCS is a flawed system, but you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If the real majority want a different system, then let's junk the BCS Jan 10th and put together another championship format. But, somehow, I bet all this 'outrage' will fade away and we will be playing with the same system next season. Any takers?

soonerpat

11/28/2011, 09:59 PM

No other sport has a problem with a conference non-champion winning their national/world championship.

That's because the other sports have legitimate playoffs.. If there was an 8 or 12 team playoff, and all conference champs plus some other worthy teams were invited, I'd have no problem with it... but in this system where there's only one game I'd like to see the "on the field conference play" trump all voters and media shills.

soonerpat

11/28/2011, 10:01 PM

Tidefan36854

11/28/2011, 10:03 PM

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 10:03 PM

8 team playoff is way too small for a 110 team league

you need to be more inclusive

32

or a 32 team bracket with 4 byes for teams 1-4

have a BCS committee select the non-conference champ at large teams.

One reason I propose 8 teams is because I believe that it's a compromise that I believe satisfies playoff proponents and opponents. The regular season would retain close to the same meaning. Almost all teams would have a shot before the season starts. This arguably would include all teams who have a serious shot at winning such a tournament. For thos concerned with the number of games played, this would only expand the season by two games (for two teams) and one game (for four teams).

If you have 32 teams you're now introducing teams with 4 or 5 losses into a playoff. You're expanding the season by 4 games which some will not like at all. Traditionalists willl not like either of these and, frankly, those 4 or 5 loss teams neither deserve a shot nor have any realistic chance of making it through such a tournament.

It's just my opinion. I could live with a 4, 12, or 16 team tournament but I think 8 is the sweet spot.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 10:26 PM

2) Make ALL losses mean something (if you just have the conference champion in the tourney, then all non-conference games are worthless)

I have to contend this is not exactly correct. Non-conference games become NFL style exhibition games if ALL conference champions and only ALL conference champions are in a playoff. If you take only some conference champions then there needs to be a way to measure the strength of the conference champions. If you take all conference champions plus some at-large teams then you have to have a way to measure the at-large teams. The non-conference games will serve that purpose. HOWEVER, if you get the formula wrong (too many conference champions in a conference champion only tourney or not enough at-large teams in a champion + at-large tourney) then they may end up getting treated like they don't mean anything.

sorry...meant 32 team bracket with 28 teams...top four get a bye.

Byes may be tried but they won't last. The higher seeded school's fans (and the business around those stadiums) are going to feel cheated out of a fun and money making home game while everyone else is playing. Anyone that thinks byes are going to work are not thinking it through.

I don't understand your outrage--because I didn't hear it back when you guys got ran out of arrowhead by K-State. YOUR team set the precedent for what is happening this year, perhaps two times over if somehow Georgia can upset LSU, because the tigers are in the game no matter what.

I'll admit, the BCS is a flawed system, but you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If the real majority want a different system, then let's junk the BCS Jan 10th and put together another championship format. But, somehow, I bet all this 'outrage' will fade away and we will be playing with the same system next season. Any takers?

There was a lot of outrage back when OU got the nod in 2003. The bizarre fact is that the media told everyone that OU was so strong in the BCS they could lose the Big 12 championship and would still be in the BCS championship... when that actually did happen, they acted outraged over it. Those were how the rules were in place. They thought they fixed it by weakening the computers. I thought they should just make it a conference championship requirement. Well, here we are 8 years later with the same issue. Outrage now? Not nearly as high as it was last time. I will say that if you think all OU fans thought it was a good and right, you weren't paying attention... and I'm guessing you weren't.

No "outrage", but I see the hypocrisy in the outrage over OU's making it several years ago (I would have been fine with them being eliminated after losing to K-state that year) and suddenly it's OK...

See Sabansballs?

One reason I propose 8 teams is because I believe that it's a compromise that I believe satisfies playoff proponents and opponents. The regular season would retain close to the same meaning. Almost all teams would have a shot before the season starts. This arguably would include all teams who have a serious shot at winning such a tournament. For thos concerned with the number of games played, this would only expand the season by two games (for two teams) and one game (for four teams).

If you have 32 teams you're now introducing teams with 4 or 5 losses into a playoff. You're expanding the season by 4 games which some will not like at all. Traditionalists willl not like either of these and, frankly, those 4 or 5 loss teams neither deserve a shot nor have any realistic chance of making it through such a tournament.

It's just my opinion. I could live with a 4, 12, or 16 team tournament but I think 8 is the sweet spot.

8 team would make a lot of playoff fans happy. It would not make AQ and non-AQ conferences happy and it is those schools that have to make it happen. AQ schools are going to want that guarantee that shuts out the non-AQs so it will not happen except if forced and then only as a step to a larger post season tourney. If you want to talk about a post season tourney, you're really talking about 4 teams (which I think doesn't really solve anyone's issues and may not even be supported by the non-AQs) and 16 team which is too large by what most fans want.

jkjsooner

11/28/2011, 10:33 PM

I don't understand your outrage--because I didn't hear it back when you guys got ran out of arrowhead by K-State. YOUR team set the precedent for what is happening this year, perhaps two times over if somehow Georgia can upset LSU, because the tigers are in the game no matter what.

I'll admit, the BCS is a flawed system, but you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If the real majority want a different system, then let's junk the BCS Jan 10th and put together another championship format. But, somehow, I bet all this 'outrage' will fade away and we will be playing with the same system next season. Any takers?

I wasn't real happy with us playing in the Sugar Bowl that year - not because we didn't win our conference but because of the way we lost the championship game.

I also think Alabama has a strong argument for inclusion. On the other hand, the OSU fans make a good point that their wins are more impressive than Alabama's wins. In fact, the most impressive thing Alabama has done is taking LSU into overtime. (I'm not sold on Arkansas. If they were as good as we've been led to believe they wouldn't have allowed A&M to jump on them like they did. Had A&M been competently coached they would not have lost that game.)

I will point out a couple of things:

There is irony in the fact that making a conference title game and losing it (even in an embarrassing way) is worse than not making it at all. I don't blame the BCS for that but instead blame the conferences who created these championship games.
Since you're an SEC guy and you guys get really confused about this, we lost to KSU 35-7. We lost to LSU 21-14. It seems that SEC fans remember it backwards.

MeMyself&Me

11/28/2011, 10:39 PM

Since you're an SEC guy and you guys get really confused about this, we lost to KSU 35-7. We lost to LSU 21-14. It seems that SEC fans remember it backwards.
[/LIST]

Seems EVERYONE remembers it backwards... really tired of hearing how OU got blown out by LSU.

OU_Sooners75

11/28/2011, 11:28 PM

PDXsooner

11/29/2011, 01:15 AM

I haven't read through the pages on here but I do know this: The best 2 teams this year are going to play for the national title. You may not like that, but it's true.

Blue

11/29/2011, 01:31 AM

I haven't read through the pages on here but I do know this: The best 2 teams this year are going to play for the national title. You may not like that, but it's true.

Blah, blah. Nobody wants to see it.

Just listening to the NFL guys talk about it after MNF was hilarious. "I'd rather stick a fork in my head than watch that game again."-Steve Young "I'd rather watch J. Edgar again"-Rick Reilly

PDXsooner

11/29/2011, 01:43 AM

Blah, blah. Nobody wants to see it.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. As much as it pains me, the best two teams are in it.

Blue

11/29/2011, 01:51 AM

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. As much as it pains me, the best two teams are in it.

Aaaaaaaahh!!!! Phooey! <jumps off bridge>

MamaMia

11/29/2011, 02:34 AM

The system they devised in the very beginning was fine. All the whiners who made them make all the changes when things didn't go their way is why we are in this mess.

LASooner

11/29/2011, 03:48 AM

Honestly the best thing a playoff would bring is the quality of the championship game, because instead of 2 zombie teams who have been sitting dormant for 4-5 weeks, you'd get 2 teams whose offense and defense would be playing their best football after 1 to 2 weeks of previous playoff games.

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 08:21 AM

I also think Alabama has a strong argument for inclusion. On the other hand, the OSU fans make a good point that their wins are more impressive than Alabama's wins. In fact, the most impressive thing Alabama has done is taking LSU into overtime. (I'm not sold on Arkansas. If they were as good as we've been led to believe they wouldn't have allowed A&M to jump on them like they did. Had A&M been competently coached they would not have lost that game.)

[/LIST]

A&M jumped up on OSU big as well, only to let them come back beat them also. A&M put up 471 yards on OSU and they gave up 163 rushing yards. OSU defense is ranked 107th, and their rushing defense is ranked 93th. LSU or our RB's would be licking their chops to play the 93th rushing defense. Even if OSU could effectively move the ball on offense (which is doubful with how these defenses are playing) I just don't think OSU could stop the running game, which will shorten the game and wear out their defense, while keeping our's fresh. That's pretty much what we and LSU have done all year long. If OSU was undefeated, I would say they deserved to play for the NC, but losing to an unranked Iowa St is a worse much loss than our's. OSU also is not having to play a conference championship game. If they played and won an additional game, their record would better than our's, but that isn't the case. The BCS is designed to determine the top 2 teams, and if it is determined that we are one of the top 2 teams, we should play. Its the system we have, and unless it is changed, this is what we get. I will say this system has worked well for OU. OU has played in the BCSNCG 4 times, which is more than anyone else. However, if teams that didn't win their conference we're allowed to play, OU would be down to 3. If the BIG12's tiebreaker system in 2008 was the same as the SEC's, you'd be down to 2 appearances. I don't remember you guys apologizing for making it to the big game in either year, and you shouldn't have. Just don't ask to to do it either...

delhalew

11/29/2011, 09:36 AM

Good luck with that 8 team playoff...

The only thing easier is a plus one. The whole thing is drifting in that direction. You keep the bowls. Really not a big deal.

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 09:44 AM

A&M jumped up on OSU big as well, only to let them come back beat them also...

True and I'm not at all sold on OSU (even if they beat us).

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 09:53 AM

I don't remember you guys apologizing for making it to the big game in either year, and you shouldn't have. Just don't ask to to do it either...

I think plenty of people here have stated that they were uncomfortable with our appearance in 2003/2004. I said it at the time on either this or another message board.

I don't apologize for the 2008/2009 appearance. Three way ties are tricky. All three of us had arguments to get into the conference title game and ultimately the national title game. What I did have a problem with was the arguments made by Texas. They essentially stated that TTech should be taken out of consideration because they got blown out. Problem is, we blew them out. Their argument essentially punishes us for playing so well against TT. That didn't sit well with me.

Ironically the one year we took the most criticism was 2004/2005. I have a problem with that as well. We had a strong SOS and were undefeated. Auburn fans, rather than taking out their frustrations on the system, attacked us. We should never have to apologize for having a strong SOS and going undefeated. (Given, we embarrassed ourself against USC but that's in hindsight. Frankly that Auburn team might have kept the game closer but there's not way that team could have hung with USC.)

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 09:59 AM

A&M jumped up on OSU big as well, only to let them come back beat them also. A&M put up 471 yards on OSU and they gave up 163 rushing yards. OSU defense is ranked 107th, and their rushing defense is ranked 93th. LSU or our RB's would be licking their chops to play the 93th rushing defense. Even if OSU could effectively move the ball on offense (which is doubful with how these defenses are playing) I just don't think OSU could stop the running game, which will shorten the game and wear out their defense, while keeping our's fresh. That's pretty much what we and LSU have done all year long. If OSU was undefeated, I would say they deserved to play for the NC, but losing to an unranked Iowa St is a worse much loss than our's. OSU also is not having to play a conference championship game. If they played and won an additional game, their record would better than our's, but that isn't the case. The BCS is designed to determine the top 2 teams, and if it is determined that we are one of the top 2 teams, we should play. Its the system we have, and unless it is changed, this is what we get. I will say this system has worked well for OU. OU has played in the BCSNCG 4 times, which is more than anyone else. However, if teams that didn't win their conference we're allowed to play, OU would be down to 3. If the BIG12's tiebreaker system in 2008 was the same as the SEC's, you'd be down to 2 appearances. I don't remember you guys apologizing for making it to the big game in either year, and you shouldn't have. Just don't ask to to do it either...

You can focus on that loss all you want but you're ignoring the wins. That's fine if that's the only criteria you want to use but don't disparage others for looking at the bigger picture. Now, as far as the rules in place, I don't think anyone is saying it's not fair or whatever as was the case in '08 (which is irrelevant here, not sure why you mentioned it) and in '03. The rules that are in place are the rules you have to go by. As far as the people here saying "it should be conference champions only", I bet they are the same people in '03 that said "it should be conference champions only, but thank goodness it's not". There's no hypocricy in that. Was OU supposed to reject its BCS championship invitation or something? Nobody is asking Alabama to do that. Just saying we don't like the selection rules. Just relax and sit back this weekend and enjoy your reward for not winning your division.

The only thing easier is a plus one. The whole thing is drifting in that direction. You keep the bowls. Really not a big deal.

If by plus one, you mean a 4 team tourney within the bowls, I don't think that will work. Not many people fans of participating schools are going to be able to travel on a weeks notice to the next game... even if they can afford two bowl trips. If they try it, it will be changed pretty quickly because those that support the schools who have a vote are going to be complaining very loud. It's one of those things that they may try but it's only a step toward a tourney that happens on campuses... and likely 16 teams at that.

rekamrettuB

11/29/2011, 10:14 AM

Actually, Nebraska set the precedent in 2001 by losing to Colorado 62 -36 in the final game of the season. Colorado went on to win the B12CCG, but Nebaska played for the NC.

I'm on Bama's side to play for the NC but has Nick come out and retracted anything about this statement:

‎"ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WIN THEIR CONFERENCE HAS NO BUSINESS PLAYING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME."
-Nick Saban, 2003

And this year we are talking about not even winning their division, i.e. Nebraska 2001. I don't believe in what Nick said and don't really care that he said it. If not for the money making championship game OU would have won the Big XII in 2003 even with that loss when looking at record. The reason I don't believe in the conference champions only is look back at my example of what could shake down this weekend with UGA, UCLA, OU, and Clemson winning their games. Then who goes? The highest ranked conference champion would probably be Houston or OU. I wouldn't feel good about OU going over LSU and Bama because of some "conference champion" only rule. I would be happy for OU but I couldn't look a LSU fand or Bama fan in the eye for a while.

delhalew

11/29/2011, 10:15 AM

Why would you want Bama to play? They don't have the resume.

rekamrettuB

11/29/2011, 10:19 AM

Why would you want Bama to play? They don't have the resume.

Me? They don't need the resume in my opinion. I think they are better than Ok State, Stanford, VaTech, Houston, etc.

pphilfran

11/29/2011, 10:25 AM

They way it looks to me Bama and lsu are the two best teams out there...

I do hope the Dawgs pull the upset so we can have a MNC game with one team not winning it's conference and the other not winning it's division....

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 10:27 AM

I'm on Bama's side to play for the NC but has Nick come out and retracted anything about this statement:

‎"ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WIN THEIR CONFERENCE HAS NO BUSINESS PLAYING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME."
-Nick Saban, 2003

And this year we are talking about not even winning their division, i.e. Nebraska 2001. I don't believe in what Nick said and don't really care that he said it. If not for the money making championship game OU would have won the Big XII in 2003 even with that loss when looking at record. The reason I don't believe in the conference champions only is look back at my example of what could shake down this weekend with UGA, UCLA, OU, and Clemson winning their games. Then who goes? The highest ranked conference champion would probably be Houston or OU. I wouldn't feel good about OU going over LSU and Bama because of some "conference champion" only rule. I would be happy for OU but I couldn't look a LSU fand or Bama fan in the eye for a while.

Like I said before on your example, instead of looking at an example that is simply not going to happen, why not look at the history of the BCS. How often would a rule like that have made a bizarre outcome like OU vs Houston for this year? How often would it have fixed perceived injustices? Without going back and looking, I'd think more often than not, college football would be better off. In fact, I think the difference would be a landslide. I'm also curious, how often pre-BCS a conference member who did not win their conference won at least the UPI/Coaches or the AP championship (not counting 'Bama style here).

rekamrettuB

11/29/2011, 10:38 AM

Like I said before on your example, instead of looking at an example that is simply not going to happen, why not look at the history of the BCS. How often would a rule like that have made a bizarre outcome like OU vs Houston for this year? How often would it have fixed perceived injustices? Without going back and looking, I'd think more often than not, college football would be better off. In fact, I think the difference would be a landslide. I'm also curious, how often pre-BCS a conference member who did not win their conference won at least the UPI/Coaches or the AP championship (not counting 'Bama style here).

It's really only 3 games unless you want to leap Oregon to play for it over Bama or LSU. The lines on these games are 3.5, 7, and 13. Those upsets happen every week. Are the odds against my example? Highly no doubt. But it can happen quickly. As far as your other question I have no clue but with the bowl systems and the non-parity back then I doubt it.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 10:50 AM

It's really only 3 games unless you want to leap Oregon to play for it over Bama or LSU. The lines on these games are 3.5, 7, and 13. Those upsets happen every week. Are the odds against my example? Highly no doubt. But it can happen quickly. As far as your other question I have no clue but with the bowl systems and the non-parity back then I doubt it.

Those losses can happen as you said. But it's never happened where all the top ranked teams were not conference winners (where they were members of conferences). I'll worry about the once every hundred years occurrence when it happens and take solace in knowing the rule works best the other 99 years. In fact, I wouldn't mind it that one in a hundred year... win the damned conference and those top ranked teams have nothing to complain about.

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 11:08 AM

They way it looks to me Bama and lsu are the two best teams out there...

For the most part I agree with you but I do want to throw one opinion out there. IMO, the title game should match the two most deserving teams, not necessarily the two best.

In the best team decided to not show up and play for two games, it doesn't matter if everyone believes that team would stomp every team in the country. By their actions on the field they are not one of the two most deserving teams.

This year I do think LSU and Bama are both the best and (arguably) the most deserving teams.

As a likely example, the best team in the country might have lost a couple of early games because of injuries to all of their star players. At season's end they might be healthy and beating everyone by 6-7 touchdowns. It sucks but the season is somewhat of a playoff. If you have injuries and lose a playoff game, well, you're out. The same applies with the NCAA season.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 11:18 AM

IMO, the title game should match the two most deserving teams, not necessarily the two best.

I couldn't agree more. Get tired of people confusing the two. As to who is the most deserving... well, we can argue on that one.

delhalew

11/29/2011, 11:18 AM

Our eye tests are worthless. If we were in the Pokes place, with a win we would be in the game. Just because I don't think they can, doesn't mean they haven't earned the chance to try.

Alabama simply hasn't beaten the same caliber of team that the candy corns have.

delhalew

11/29/2011, 11:19 AM

Our eye tests are worthless. If we were in the Pokes place, with a win we would be in the game. Just because I don't think they can win, doesn't mean they haven't earned the chance to try.

Alabama simply hasn't beaten the same caliber of team that the candy corns have.

delhalew

11/29/2011, 11:20 AM

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 11:23 AM

Those losses can happen as you said. But it's never happened where all the top ranked teams were not conference winners (where they were members of conferences). I'll worry about the once every hundred years occurrence when it happens and take solace in knowing the rule works best the other 99 years. In fact, I wouldn't mind it that one in a hundred year... win the damned conference and those top ranked teams have nothing to complain about.

I still disagree 100%. Unless the NCAA defines conferences (similar to football in HS), thte conference results should have no direct bearing on the national title hunt.

Conferences are organizations that schools voluntarily join. Their original purpose is to help with scheduling (since the NCAA doesn't do scheduling like the NFL). Now they serve a second purpose of marketing and revenue building.

All of this is outside the realm of the NCAA. If we ever have a championship that is truly controlled by the NCAA, conference affiliation should play absolutely no role.

By requiring a team win their conference, you are simply adding one unnecessary barrier to getting the best (or most deserving) teams in the playoffs.

By doing so, you're stating that OU (if we beat OSU) is more deserving of consideration than Alabama. That is just absurd to me.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 11:35 AM

Conferences are organizations that schools voluntarily join.

This is the part that makes it OK with me that conferences are set up differently. They are voluntarily members of those conferences and are a part of setting up the rules for those conferences. If the rules they are a part of making say they are not the champion of their conference, I don't think they should have a chance to be champion of college football. To make that rule seem absurd, you have to give examples where no top 5 teams were conference champions (where these teams were members of conferences), and I don't think that's ever happened, and certainly not likely to happen very often... as in hardly ever.

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 11:40 AM

I think too many people looke at the NFL conferences and high school football districts and want to apply the same logic to college but they are really separate beasts altogether.

In the NFL example, conferences are set up by the NFL. Scheduling is controlled by the NFL. (Six games are within the conference, four are against another conference within the same league, and six are against teams in the other six conferences with a similar standing as year before.) Conferences have equal size. Conference strength can vary but over the long run it should even out because of the draft policy and salary cap.

In high school districts are set by the state association. They are determined in a year-to-year basis and an attempt is made to even the level of play between conferences (as much as possible considering practical geographical limitations).

What's to say that a conference stops declaring any sort of winner so as not to trigger the "must win conference" rule? That's what I'd do. If I felt like two of our three 11-1 teams were excluded in favor of an 8-3 ACC team then I'd tell the schools, "We're no longer officially claiming a conference championship. You can claim one in your media guide if you feel you deserved it."

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 11:48 AM

This is the part that makes it OK with me that conferences are set up differently. They are voluntarily members of those conferences and are a part of setting up the rules for those conferences. If the rules they are a part of making say they are not the champion of their conference, I don't think they should have a chance to be champion of college football.

Doesn't sit well with me to have non-uniform rules when we're talking about national titles.

To make that rule seem absurd, you have to give examples where no top 5 teams were conference champions (where these teams were members of conferences),

Nope, that was just the most extreme example. I gave one more. Assume we have an 8 team playoff. Three Big 12 teams finish 11-1 (in a three way tie) are are ranked 1, 2, and 3. The only way to determine the conference winner is by the BCS formula so the team ranked #1 is declared the winner.

Meanwhile, an 8-3 team won the Big East and another 8-3 team won the ACC. They're considered for inclusion and the two 11-1 teams are not.

If I, by my own doing, create some artificial concept such as a conference championship and that concept is used against me then I'm getting rid of it altogether. PERIOD.

rekamrettuB

11/29/2011, 11:51 AM

This is the part that makes it OK with me that conferences are set up differently. They are voluntarily members of those conferences and are a part of setting up the rules for those conferences. If the rules they are a part of making say they are not the champion of their conference, I don't think they should have a chance to be champion of college football. To make that rule seem absurd, you have to give examples where no top 5 teams were conference champions (where these teams were members of conferences), and I don't think that's ever happened, and certainly not likely to happen very often... as in hardly ever.

So you are saying you would be cool with Houston playing Oregon this year over LSU or Bama?

Here's the current BCS standings:

LSU
Alabama
Oklahoma St.
Stanford
Virginia Tech
Houston
Boise St.
Arkansas
Oregon
Oklahoma

Whether you want to say it hasn't happened ever you are staring at 3 games that could make it happen this year.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 12:28 PM

What's to say that a conference stops declaring any sort of winner so as not to trigger the "must win conference" rule? That's what I'd do. If I felt like two of our three 11-1 teams were excluded in favor of an 8-3 ACC team then I'd tell the schools, "We're no longer officially claiming a conference championship. You can claim one in your media guide if you feel you deserved it."

I'd like to what they call the team that won the conference 'championship game' or how they decide their BCS auto-qualifier or how they determine the bowl tie in if not an AQ conference. Doubt they would do that because the issue you're worried about is rare.

Nope, that was just the most extreme example. I gave one more. Assume we have an 8 team playoff. Three Big 12 teams finish 11-1 (in a three way tie) are are ranked 1, 2, and 3. The only way to determine the conference winner is by the BCS formula so the team ranked #1 is declared the winner.

Meanwhile, an 8-3 team won the Big East and another 8-3 team won the ACC. They're considered for inclusion and the two 11-1 teams are not.

If I, by my own doing, create some artificial concept such as a conference championship and that concept is used against me then I'm getting rid of it altogether. PERIOD.

Now you're talking about an 8 team format... not a 2 team format which is what we have. Not really relevant.

So you are saying you would be cool with Houston playing Oregon this year over LSU or Bama?

Here's the current BCS standings:

LSU
Alabama
Oklahoma St.
Stanford
Virginia Tech
Houston
Boise St.
Arkansas
Oregon
Oklahoma

Whether you want to say it hasn't happened ever you are staring at 3 games that could make it happen this year.

Not likely to happen but yes. If you don't win you your conference, you don't have much of argument. But I'll point out again that you need to come up with an absurdity that has never happen and is not even likely to happen this year to make it appear absurd.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 12:31 PM

Doesn't sit well with me to have non-uniform rules when we're talking about national titles.

National titles have never really been uniform in college football though.

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 01:43 PM

I'm on Bama's side to play for the NC but has Nick come out and retracted anything about this statement:

‎"ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WIN THEIR CONFERENCE HAS NO BUSINESS PLAYING IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME."
-Nick Saban, 2003

And this year we are talking about not even winning their division, i.e. Nebraska 2001. I don't believe in what Nick said and don't really care that he said it. If not for the money making championship game OU would have won the Big XII in 2003 even with that loss when looking at record. The reason I don't believe in the conference champions only is look back at my example of what could shake down this weekend with UGA, UCLA, OU, and Clemson winning their games. Then who goes? The highest ranked conference champion would probably be Houston or OU. I wouldn't feel good about OU going over LSU and Bama because of some "conference champion" only rule. I would be happy for OU but I couldn't look a LSU fand or Bama fan in the eye for a while.

CNS never said that. It was rumor started on an Auburn board that grew legs.

http://blog.newsok.com/jennicarlson/2011/11/29/saban-quote-making-the-rounds-its-a-fake/

BoulderSooner79

11/29/2011, 01:51 PM

CNS never said that. It was rumor started on an Auburn board that grew legs.

http://blog.newsok.com/jennicarlson/2011/11/29/saban-quote-making-the-rounds-its-a-fake/

I don't know what you Bama fans are doing here. But if you guys get another crack at LSU and don't win we will neg you to Bolivia and you will be bained. I'm talking to you too, Sabanball.

Harumph.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 01:53 PM

CNS never said that. It was rumor started on an Auburn board that grew legs.

http://blog.newsok.com/jennicarlson/2011/11/29/saban-quote-making-the-rounds-its-a-fake/

While I don't think he really said that, you're not helping your case by linking a Jenny Carlson article around here.

We actually
know who she is
and what the
quality of her
work is.

Do
you?

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 02:10 PM

You can focus on that loss all you want but you're ignoring the wins. That's fine if that's the only criteria you want to use but don't disparage others for looking at the bigger picture. Now, as far as the rules in place, I don't think anyone is saying it's not fair or whatever as was the case in '08 (which is irrelevant here, not sure why you mentioned it) and in '03. The rules that are in place are the rules you have to go by. As far as the people here saying "it should be conference champions only", I bet they are the same people in '03 that said "it should be conference champions only, but thank goodness it's not". There's no hypocricy in that. Was OU supposed to reject its BCS championship invitation or something? Nobody is asking Alabama to do that. Just saying we don't like the selection rules. Just relax and sit back this weekend and enjoy your reward for not winning your division.

I'm not ignoring their wins. I just don't see anybody they've beat that is anywhere near the level of LSU or Bama. Neither LSU nor Bama have even had a close game, except the one we played together. Both teams have dominated the other teams they've played. There aren't really any common opponents to compare. The closest thing you could point to would be OSU and Arky's performances against Texas A&M. They were both very close, high scoring games that Texas A&M controlled at halftime. Arky's offense put up 96 more yards and 12 more points than OSU did on A&M. LSU and Bama absolutely housed Arky, and it wasn't even close.

On the 2008 thing, the only reason I brought it up is because it illustrates how the system worked for OU. If the same scenario happened in the SEC, Texas would have went instead of OU because our tiebreaker system is different. The system in place was what everybody agreed to, and OU benefitted from it. The BCS doesn't require a team to a conference champion, so this year the system might work out for us.

With all that being said, I'm hoping OU beats OSU this weekend, and eliminates the discussion entirely. I have always been a big OU fan (that's the reason I've been a member of this board for 7 years) and I always pull for OU as long as you aren't playing Bama. I used to post here more frequently, but over the last few years there has been evergrowing anti-SEC sentiment here, so I lurk more than I post these days.

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 02:16 PM

While I don't think he really said that, you're not helping your case by linking a Jenny Carlson article around here.

We actually
know who she is
and what the
quality of her
work is.

Do
you?

I know she's the one that Gundy told He was man and he was 40, but that's about it. I also know that no one can provide any proof that Saban said it, and I guarantee you if he did say it, OU and LSU fans would remember it. The LSU fans on Tigerdroppings, Tiger Bait, etc., say he never said it, and no one here has said they remember him saying it.

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 02:17 PM

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 02:18 PM

Now you're talking about an 8 team format... not a 2 team format which is what we have. Not really relevant.

Fair enough. We've discussed both (playoff and conferrence champ requirement) in this thread.

If you're talking about a two team format, I have less of a problem with limiting it to conference champions although I'd rather not because it just seems to be an artificial rule that can prevent the two teams who have the most complete body of work from meeting on the field.

As for a tournament, I'm not at all in favor of having the conference standing be a factor. It would be absurd to me to think that Alabama hasn't played their way into a 4 or 8 team field.

I'm also strongly against giving conference champions an automatic spot in a playoff field - unless we had at least 16 teams in the field (which I'm not in favor of). There are two reasons for this.

1) A team can win their conference division with a fairly weak record. If they win the conference championship game (see KSU in 2003) then you can end up with a completely undeserving team in the championship tournament. (I don't mind KSU being in a BCS bowl but not in competition for a national title.) Plus, it means that outside of at-large considerations, non-conference games are meaningless.

2) We would not give automatic births to every conference. I want the national championship to be as legitimate as possible. The only way to do this is to treat every school and conference on an equal playing field. In addition, I want the NCAA to do what every other organization does and actually take charge of awarding the national champion. (A comment in the record book that states that the NCAA recognizes champions from certain external organizations - be in BCS, AP, or whatever - is not sufficient.) The NCAA would not agree to a system that gave automatic births to a few conferences and not others.

Sorry, getting way off topic now...

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 02:22 PM

I'm not ignoring their wins. I just don't see anybody they've beat that is anywhere near the level of LSU or Bama.

I'd say that neither has Bama for that matter.

Yup, we've been the beneficiary of the system before and it looks like you will be this year. Doesn't mean we can't say we don't like what the system is.

That said, you're referencing a conference tie breaker system that is not really that relevant here. It would be more relevant in a discussion if Arky had pulled off the LSU upset. The Arky situation showed why the Big 12's rule then was better than the current SEC rule. Arky was in the precarious position of needing to beat LSU bad enough that Arky beats Alabama, but not so bad that LSU dropped below Alabama. At least with the Big 12's rule then, you just went and did the best you could. If you want to talk about the 5th level 3-way tie breaker, I'll argue OU's position in 2008 all day if you need to but I won't be arguing OU's 2003 case or Nebraska's 2001 case because I don't think the rules should be set to allow it, and I didn't then.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 02:26 PM

Fair enough. We've discussed both (playoff and conferrence champ requirement) in this thread.

If you're talking about a two team format, I have less of a problem with limiting it to conference champions although I'd rather not.

As for a tournament, I'm not at all in favor of having the conference standing be a factor. It would be absurd to me to think that Alabama hasn't played their way into a 4 or 8 team field.

I'm also strongly against giving conference champions an automatic spot in a playoff field - unless we had at least 16 teams in the field (which I'm not in favor of). There are two reasons for this.

1) A team can win their conference division with a fairly weak record. If they win the conference championship game (see KSU in 2003) then you can end up with a completely undeserving team in the championship tournament. (I don't mind KSU being in a BCS bowl but not in competition for a national title.) Plus, it means that outside of at-large considerations, non-conference games are meaningless.

2) We would not give automatic births to every conference. I want the national championship to be as legitimate as possible. The only way to do this is to treat every school and conference on an equal playing field. In addition, I want the NCAA to do what every other organization does and actually take charge of awarding the national champion. (A comment in the record book that states that the NCAA recognizes champions from certain external organizations - be in BCS, AP, or whatever - is not sufficient.) The NCAA would not agree to a system that gave automatic births to a few conferences and not others.

Sorry, getting way off topic now...

Once you start doing a tourney, I don't really care how you do it at that point. You're rewritting what college football is and throwing out what college football has been. At that point, might as well make it like every other sport... seems to be what everyone (by everyone, I mean the loudest) wants.

LVokie

11/29/2011, 02:35 PM

I know she's the one that Gundy told He was man and he was 40, but that's about it. I also know that no one can provide any proof that Saban said it, and I guarantee you if he did say it, OU and LSU fans would remember it. The LSU fans on Tigerdroppings, Tiger Bait, etc., say he never said it, and no one here has said they remember him saying it.

He DID say that he didn't think the national championship could be settled unless each of the teams being discussed played each other, though; if he was being consistent, then, he should be endorsing an OSU-LSU title game (assuming OSU wins Bedlam), since 'Bama already played LSU at home and lost. So the basic point that he's happy to make whatever argument translates to "put Nick Saban's team in the title game this year" remains true. You know darn well, if he was coaching OSU this year, he'd be making the exact same argument I just did; to say otherwise is flat-out delusional.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 02:43 PM

...flat-out delusional.

Have you seen how many national championships they claim?

rekamrettuB

11/29/2011, 03:28 PM

CNS never said that. It was rumor started on an Auburn board that grew legs.

http://blog.newsok.com/jennicarlson/2011/11/29/saban-quote-making-the-rounds-its-a-fake/

I'm sure it was probably Pete Carrol. I do recall someone saying it or something similar back then. My original post meant to say "I don't believe Nick said it and don't really care if he did". Got caught up in editing.

rekamrettuB

11/29/2011, 03:42 PM

Not likely to happen but yes. If you don't win you your conference, you don't have much of argument. But I'll point out again that you need to come up with an absurdity that has never happen and is not even likely to happen this year to make it appear absurd.

It is "not likely to happen" yes. But, in 2007 with the following rankings how "likely" was it on Dec 1st that LSU and Ohio State would be playing for the NC. It only took 3 games for that "absurd" result to happen:

Mizzu (9 OU)
West Virginia (unranked Pitt)
Ohio State
Georgia
KU
Va Tech (11 Boston College)
LSU (14 Tennessee)

Don't go looking at "conference champs" because I understand that's what happened. Just look at the likelihood of Mizzu losing, WVa losing, UGA and KU dropping while idle, and Va Tech winning but losing a spot to LSU. That scenario was absurd. All it takes is 3 games this year and, under the conference champs only, you would have some crazy matchup like Houston vs Oregon while LSU, Bama, OU, Stanford, Va Tech all watched Houston, winners of the whatever conference they are in, play in NOLA. No matter how absurd or unlikely it is to happen, the fact we could be watching Oregon/OU vs Houston tells me that "conference champs only" rule is not a good one.

MeMyself&Me

11/29/2011, 03:56 PM

It is "not likely to happen" yes. But, in 2007 with the following rankings how "likely" was it on Dec 1st that LSU and Ohio State would be playing for the NC. It only took 3 games for that "absurd" result to happen:

Mizzu (9 OU)
West Virginia (unranked Pitt)
Ohio State
Georgia
KU
Va Tech (11 Boston College)
LSU (14 Tennessee)

Don't go looking at "conference champs" because I understand that's what happened. Just look at the likelihood of Mizzu losing, WVa losing, UGA and KU dropping while idle, and Va Tech winning but losing a spot to LSU. That scenario was absurd. All it takes is 3 games this year and, under the conference champs only, you would have some crazy matchup like Houston vs Oregon while LSU, Bama, OU, Stanford, Va Tech all watched Houston, winners of the whatever conference they are in, play in NOLA. No matter how absurd or unlikely it is to happen, the fact we could be watching Oregon/OU vs Houston tells me that "conference champs only" rule is not a good one.

Anything could happen I suppose. In any year too. We could suppose that all the AQ conference champions have 3 losses next year but the Sun Belt champion went undefeated in conference and their non-conference slate included 2 wins against FCS opponents and WAC bottom feeders and then say it's absurd that BCS would allow such a team to be in the title game because it could happen. But it won't. If it did, it would be a rare anomaly. Just like your example.

College football has been around a while. If having a top five chock full of non-conference winners (when they are members of conferences) was something that happened regular enough to worry, we'd have seen it by now.

Dale Ellis

11/29/2011, 04:22 PM

Anyone that loses to Iowa St, has no business in the NC game anymore than anyone who loses to TT at home regardless of what they did after that.

pphilfran

11/29/2011, 04:36 PM

Anyone that loses to Iowa St, has no business in the NC game anymore than anyone who loses to TT at home regardless of what they did after that.

LSU won the whole enchilada while losing to Kentucky on the road and the Hogs at home...both had 5 losses on the year...

Just sayin'...

SicEmBaylor

11/29/2011, 05:04 PM

Are you saying retain the current bowl structure? That means Oregon plays Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl for a shot at the playoffs. Meanwhile Iowa State plays Mississippi State in the Independence Bowl for their own shot at the playoffs?

Damn, man, that's some upside down seeding there.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not entirely sure how the seeding would work in that situation, but...yes...use the bowls to determine playoff position.

badger

11/29/2011, 05:06 PM

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not entirely sure how the seeding would work in that situation, but...yes...use the bowls to determine playoff position.

So you're saying you don't want the BCS to determine who wins the Heisman?

BCS: RG3 loses.
Baylor: Bawwwwwwww

FaninAma

11/29/2011, 05:07 PM

I don't know what you Bama fans are doing here. But if you guys get another crack at LSU and don't win we will neg you to Bolivia and you will be bained. I'm talking to you too, Sabanball.

Harumph.

I like that idea muy mucho. In fact, even though I refuse to watch a rematch between LSU and Alabama I will love watching the media spin and excuses for giving Bama another shot at LSU should the Tide lose or get blown out. And the flip-side ain't too bad, either.....listening to the LSU fans whine and moan about having to play Bama twice should the fighting Karl's of LSU lose.

stoops4pres

11/29/2011, 09:15 PM

LSU's body of work absolutely supports them being #1, but have you really looked at Alabama's schedule and who they've beaten?

If - and this is a BIG if - OSU beats OU this weekend, here's how OSU's and Alabama's wins would compare:

Best Win (OSU - Bama): #10 Oklahoma (9-3) - #8 Arkansas (10-2)
2nd: #11 Kansas State (9-2) - #21 Penn State (9-3)
3rd: #17 Baylor (8-3) - Auburn (7-5)
4th: #22 Texas (7-4) - Florida (6-6)
5th: #25 Missouri (7-5) - Miss State (6-6)

If we beat OU and Texas beats Baylor, Oklahoma State will have wins over 5 ranked opponents while Alabama only has 2.

Obviously, Iowa State is a worse loss than LSU, but at least it was on the road. But OSU will have also won the 1st or 2nd best conference in the country, while Alabama will not have even won their own division.

I'm not saying that OSU is better than Alabama... but when you really look at the "body of work", OSU will have a better argument than Alabama IF they beat OU.

I'm not saying you are indicating OSU should be ranked second right now... I know you stated OSU should be if the scenarios you just touched on come to fruition this week. But to me, right now and probably next week, I think it's justified that Bama is ranked ahead. It's not simply a black and white concept when comparing both losses. Oklahoma State lost in overtime to a mediocre (at best) Iowa State team, while Alabama lost in overtime to LSU--the #1 team in the country, and a team that is currently going through arguably the greatest run in the SEC in decades.

Not to mention, Alabama's best win (Arkansas) was a rout, while Ok. State's best win went down to the wire (K-State). Alabama hasn't had quite the schedule OSU has had, but it is still legitimate enough and all of their wins have been dominant enough that all things considered they should be ranked ahead of OSU at this time.

And I keep hearing the argument that Alabama "won't win its division", but it isn't Bama's fault that the undisputed best team in college football is in the same division. That's why I think that argument is irrelevant in this scenario; every contender in every conference sans Oregon had the luxury of avoiding LSU.

There's still another weekend to go, and if Ok. State somehow routs OU, then it perhaps becomes a different story. But right now, at this juncture, I think it's fair that Bama is ahead of OSU.

stoops4pres

11/29/2011, 09:24 PM

LSU won the whole enchilada while losing to Kentucky on the road and the Hogs at home...both had 5 losses on the year...

Just sayin'...

Yeah I don't agree with that rationale you argued against either. OSU had a bad loss, but with that being said they still have a good argument to be ranked #2 in the country. Earlier I said Bama should be ahead all things considered, but at this juncture it certainly is a compelling topic. I'd take Bama, but OSU is close.

jkjsooner

11/29/2011, 09:42 PM

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not entirely sure how the seeding would work in that situation, but...yes...use the bowls to determine playoff position.

Here's your idea:

What about eliminating the BCS, retaining the current bowl system, and then instituting a playoff of all the bowl winners?

This means that the bowls are essentially the first round. If we use the exact same bowl configuration then we're essentially doing the exact opposite of what seeding is intended to do. We're matching tough teams with tough teams and weak teams with weak teams in the first round (bowls).

That like the #1 seeds in the basketball tournament playing each other in the first round and the #16 seeds playing each other. Please tell me who in the world would agree to that?

If on the other hand, you would suggest seeding teams in the proper way before playing a bowl game then you'll end up with LSU playing Iowa State in a bowl. That doesn't make a very intriguing bowl game.

Basically, your idea has fail written all over it.

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 10:02 PM

It is my opinion that in most years the BCS gets the top 2 teams right, but there are also years that the #3 or #4 team would have a legit shot to win it. I've never wanted to see a full playoff system, as I enjoy the bowls. I've gone back and looked (trying to be as objective as possible) I can't really see any years that the #5 or #6 team had a good enough resume to play for the title. With that being said, I think you could take the top 4 teams every year, pair them #1 vs #3 and #2 vs 4# in two of the 4 major bowls on a rotating basis. After those games were played, 2 of them would be eliminated, and 2 winners could play for the title. I would want to go back to the bowls being done by Jan 1st like it used to be, and have a NCG the next week, or maybe after 2 weeks. This only adds 1 more game to the Championship teams, and it gives the top 4 teams a fair shake to win the NC. People have suggested using this type of system as a +1 in case 3 or more teams were unfeated, but I say do it every year. It would be a consistent way of finding out who is the best team out of the top 4 ranked teams in CFB without drastically changing CFB. Thoughts?

mdklatt

11/29/2011, 10:15 PM

It would be a consistent way of finding out who is the best team out of the top 4 ranked teams in CFB without drastically changing CFB. Thoughts?

This is my question to everyone who thinks a playoff is obviously better than what we have now: Were the Giants the best team in the NFL when they beat the Patriots? They were the best team in the stadium that night. Maybe. A playoff is only objectively better than the BCS if your goal is to determine the best team over a 2-3 game stretch. On average, the better team comes out on top in a playoff. On average, the BCS gets it right. Whatever floats your boat, but don't claim that one is self-evidently better than the other. They're both arbitrary.

TXBOOMER

11/29/2011, 10:19 PM

If LSU and Bama end up in the game the system worked because the two best teams would be playing for the title.

Tidefan36854

11/29/2011, 10:40 PM

mdklatt

11/29/2011, 10:42 PM

If LSU and Bama end up in the game the system worked because the two best teams would be playing for the title.

LSU already beat Alabama once this year, why do they have to do it again? If two teams split a series, why does the one that wins at the end of the season get the trophy? Arbitrary. Sometimes there's no way around rematches, like conference championship games, but the BCS doesn't have to do that.

MeMyself&Me

11/30/2011, 07:42 AM

I've gone back and looked (trying to be as objective as possible) I can't really see any years that the #5 or #6 team had a good enough resume to play for the title.

Doesn't matter if it hasn't happened... it's possible, the sky might fall!!!

jkjsooner

11/30/2011, 09:14 AM

This is my question to everyone who thinks a playoff is obviously better than what we have now: Were the Giants the best team in the NFL when they beat the Patriots? They were the best team in the stadium that night. Maybe. A playoff is only objectively better than the BCS if your goal is to determine the best team over a 2-3 game stretch. On average, the better team comes out on top in a playoff. On average, the BCS gets it right. Whatever floats your boat, but don't claim that one is self-evidently better than the other. They're both arbitrary.

Why don't you read the thread. We've discussed the Giants enough already. The NCAA equivalent of the Giants are not making a 4 or 8 team playoff. I don't know how many times I have to state that.

Using your logic we shouldn't have a championship game because the best team may not win it. Why in the world should LSU have to play a final game? Wouldn't it be a travesty if they lost it?

As for your comparison of the BCS getting it right on average with a playoff getting it right on average, that is horrible comparison. When the BCS gets it wrong that means the voters (most likely) got it wrong. When the NFL "gets it wrong" that means the best team lost a game on the field.

Other than the use of the "on average" phrase the two scenarios have absolutely nothing in common.

One other point, you act as if the Patriots got screwed because of a single bad game they played. Guess what, in CFB that single bad game might be in the middle of the season and, well, you may be SOL then too.

jkjsooner

11/30/2011, 09:17 AM

If LSU and Bama end up in the game the system worked because the two best teams would be playing for the title.

I agree to an extent but how do we know that Bama is the #2 team? We're going by the eye test which has failed all of us many times before. Unless you think Arkansas is a great team (I don't) then Bama hasn't beaten any really good teams.

I think they are the best two teams but I sure don't know that that is the case.

The biggest reason I'm in favor of a playoff is the structure of college football. We play 8 or 9 games every year between the same teams. We then play 3 or so games every year against teams outside our little group. That's not many games and most of them are played in isolation.

Frankly, basketball has a lot better chance of determining who the best team is after the regular season has ended. You play a lot more games and a lot more non-conference games.

jkjsooner

11/30/2011, 10:06 AM

I want to make one more point and I'd love it if you guys who bring up the NY Giants would counter it.

Let's say we have an 8 team playoff. Let's say Virginia Tech won the playoff. That means they beat the #4, #1, and #2 seeded teams (or even with other upsets they would beat 3 top 8 teams).

VT ends the season at 15-1. Now let's back up and forget that that was in fact a tournament. Would you have any reason to say that VT didn't prove themselves as a champion?

You could say the same about any of the the top 8 teams. (Arkansas might be the lone exception due to the situation.)

All of these teams are close enough that if they won such a tournament and you looked back at their body of work throughout the season you could make a strong claim that they are the best team.

There is no NY Giants scenario here. If a team makes it into the top 8 and wins 3 huge games then they've gone 16-0, 15-1 or at worst 14-2. You can't look back at any of those and say that they just got lucky or just got hot at the end of the year. Nope, they all won multiple huge games and lost very few games.

Even in the Houston case, you might question their schedule right now but if they won such a tournament they would have proven more throughout the season than any team in recent memory. Rarely does a team beat 3 teams in the top 4 and that's exactly what Houston would have to do.

If you look back on that NFL season, you can easily say the Patriots were better than the Giants. With an 8 team playoff (or definitely with a 4 or 6 team playoff) you could not say the same.

MeMyself&Me

11/30/2011, 10:15 AM

jkj, everything you post about an 8 team tournament supposes that you will take the top 8 ranked teams. I see no reason to suppose there won't be guarantees for current AQ conference champs in any system that involves more than 6 teams which would mean teams well outside the top 8 would make it to the tournament fairly common. You can say how much you like it or how much sense it makes to you but it doesn't mean that those who have a say will like it.

jkjsooner

11/30/2011, 10:17 AM

jkjsooner

11/30/2011, 10:19 AM

rekamrettuB

11/30/2011, 10:35 AM

LSU already beat Alabama once this year, why do they have to do it again? If two teams split a series, why does the one that wins at the end of the season get the trophy? Arbitrary. Sometimes there's no way around rematches, like conference championship games, but the BCS doesn't have to do that.

If LSU beats UGA this weekend why would they have to play anyone?

MeMyself&Me

11/30/2011, 11:26 AM

You know what would be interesting? Have a season where you start out playing your conference games. (Maybe you would have one non-conference game so independents could fill their season.)

Then, after this is done you start playing games of like vs like teams. An 8-0 team would play another 8-0 team. An 0-8 team would play another 0-8 team. AFter that week you match up like vs like teams again. At the end of the year you'd have a better idea where each team stands.

Then you could have your precious national title bowl game with no playoff...

Let's say BSU goes 8-0 in conference. Then they match up against another 8-0 team (if one exists). If they lose they match up against an 8-1 team the next week. If they lose again they match up against an 8-2 team. With 3 or 4 games you know exactly where BSU stands.

It's sort of how the intramurals did their scheduling and it's an effective way to sort teams with very few games.

I'm sure there are reasons (travel, not if you have a home game or not in two weeks, etc) why this would not be practical but it would make for an interesting format.

Now that is all kinds of cool. Wouldn't mind seeing something like that just for the uniqueness of it. Can't see that ever happening though if for no other reason that nobody is talking about it.

True. I'm arguing for my idea not for other's and not saying it's politically possible.

Yeah, I guess I look at it from a 'what's possible' angle which makes it hard for me to get into a discussion of an 8 team format. 16 teams is the only format that looks to me like it would make all the parties that have a say happy for the long term.