AP Voters Speak Out on OU's Ranking [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

View Full Version : AP Voters Speak Out on OU's Ranking

Octavian

11/14/2006, 01:30 PM

Pollsters struggle with where Sooners rank

By John E. Hoover - World Sports Writer
11/14/2006

OU has moved up one spot in each of the past four weeks.

NORMAN -- Voters in the Associated Press college football top 25 poll have varied opinions on why Oklahoma can't seem to move up in the rankings despite a five-game winning streak.

None, however, are stronger than that of Jason Whitlock, a columnist for the Kansas City Star.

"It's a lack of courage that is hurting the Sooners," Whitlock responded to a Sunday night e-mail query to the 65-person field of voters. "It's just easier and safer for most voters to view the Sooners as a two-loss team rather than acknowledge the fact that Oklahoma was robbed of a road victory at Oregon by a Pac-10 ref with a long history of screwing nonconference opponents."

Whitlock has the 8-2 Sooners ranked eighth on his ballot and is one of five AP voters with OU ranked in the top 10.

The Associated Press poll, now in its 71st season, is no longer a component of the Bowl Championship Series formula but remains the granddaddy of the polls and still crowns its own national champion.

Since losing to Texas on Oct. 7, the Sooners are 5-0, but have climbed only seven spots, including one spot each of the last four weeks.

"I would say I probably have them too low," replied Jeff Metcalfe, a writer at the Arizona Republic, who has the Sooners 15th, behind California, Texas, Louisville and Boise State. "You can make a case that Oklahoma is worthy of being ahead of those four teams."

Metcalfe is one of several voters who said they had the Sooners ranked No. 1 in the preseason before Rhett Bomar and J.D. Quinn were kicked off the team and then adjusted their ballots to drop the Sooners.

Doug Lesmerises of the Cleveland Plain Dealer dropped OU from first to fifth on his preseason ballot and thinks now that was too high. Lesmerises (13th) dropped the Sooners again five spots to No. 10 after they squeaked by Alabama-Birmingham 24-17 in the season opener.

Apparently, not many voters thought a lot of OU after the UAB game. Nationally, OU dropped from 10th to 15th following the victory. The Sooners stayed 15th after beating Washington, but dropped to 17th after the Oregon loss.

Most voters who responded said they still try to take into account the Sooners' trip to Oregon. Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News (10th) said he bumped OU from 20th to 12th after the replay debacle -- but not to the extent he considers OU a one-loss team worthy of national title discussion.

"Bad things happen to good people / teams," wrote B.G. Brooks of the Rocky Mountain News (15th).

"I've wrestled back and forth with how to judge the Oregon game," wrote Jon Solomon of the Birmingham News (13th).

And Bud Withers (14th), a columnist for the Seattle Times, replied, "if the replay guy (Gordon Riese) had just used five minutes in the Oregon-Oklahoma game to get it right rather than feel hurried about it, Oklahoma could well be in the national-title picture as a one-loss team."

Alas, a 28-10 loss to Texas -- in which OU trailed 21-10 in the fourth quarter with possession of the ball inside the Texas red zone -- caused most voters to rethink the Oregon outcome, and the Sooners fell to 23rd.

Brooks wrote, "I think the Texas loss certainly is revisited by voters far too much."

A perceived public backlash from OU president David Boren's letter to Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg doesn't seem to hurt the Sooners.

"I think the president went a little far in his comments," wrote Bob Holt of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (ninth), but, "I don't think you should penalize the players for something the school president says."

Adrian Peterson's broken collarbone also hasn't affected voters' perception, either.

"If anything," wrote Michael Pointer of the Indianapolis Star (14th), "losing Peterson has helped Oklahoma in my eyes because I think what they have accomplished is even more impressive."

Two factors that do seem to hurt OU in voters' minds: the Big 12 isn't that strong, and the Big East is surprisingly good.

"This year," wrote Herb Gould of the Chicago Sun-Times (15th), "the focus is elsewhere."

"It's not Oklahoma's fault, it's their conference," replied SI.com's Stewart Mandel (14th). "There isn't a lot of respect for the teams in that league outside of OU and Texas, so beating them doesn't make the same kind of impression as, say, Arkansas beating Tennessee or Rutgers beating Louisville."

"Wins against Missouri and Texas A&M don't look as good today as they did a week or two ago," wrote Adam Van Brimmer (17th) of the Savannah Morning News.

But Whitlock contends the Sooners' biggest nemesis is the pollsters simply not doing their homework.

"Voters vote the records rather than put any real thought into what they're doing," Whitlock wrote. "That's why Louisville was ranked No. 3 for a week. It's why Rutgers is overrated right now. It's easier to follow the pack."

.

milesl

11/14/2006, 01:35 PM

Jason is by far the most interesting of all the sport writers on the Kansas City Star. He says what he feels which gets him fired from all his moonlighting jobs - radio, espn.

TUSooner

11/14/2006, 01:36 PM

And of course, at least one voter in New Orleans thought OU lost to TTech last Saturday. :rolleyes:

IronSooner

11/14/2006, 01:37 PM

Alas, a 28-10 loss to Texas -- in which OU trailed 21-10 in the fourth quarter with possession of the ball inside the Texas red zone -- caused most voters to rethink the Oregon outcome, and the Sooners fell to 23rd.

That might be what I hated most about that game. If we'd won I think people could have shrugged off the UO game a little easier. But losing to UT seemed to give credence to those who view the UO game as a deserved loss. And now that we're removed from it a bit I think most of them have come to view us as a 2-loss team more solidly. Especially, as they note at the end, since the Big 12 sucks this year.

flopshotjoe99

11/14/2006, 01:41 PM

OSUAggie

11/14/2006, 01:42 PM

we'll see how much the big xii sucks this year in the bowl games... i think it's a lot stronger than it was @ the beginning of the year... OU should be viewed as a 1 loss team, but maybe not as strong of a 1-loss team as some others (like an Arkansas)...

soonerndn

11/14/2006, 01:42 PM

Put us in the OB against any Big East team!

poke4christ

11/14/2006, 01:52 PM

Count me as one who does not think the big 12 sucks this year. In fact, I think we are better than we've been in the past several years.

KSU is up
Missouri is up
Texas is down a little from last year (after NT, it's to be expected)
OU is back up from last year
OSU is way up from last year
Nebraska is up from last year
A&M is up from last year

Only Tech, ISU, and Colorado are down, and how much worse are they than they were last year. The big 12 is tougher and that will be proved come bowl time IMHO.

If OU wins out, they should probably get at least the Gator Bowl.

Zach

Stoop Dawg

11/14/2006, 01:55 PM

College football rankings - as well as so-called "National Championships" - are a joke.

tbl

11/14/2006, 01:59 PM

I agree with poke that the Bowls will tell the story on the B12.

tbl

11/14/2006, 02:00 PM

College football rankings - as well as so-called "National Championships" - are a joke.
Not when you have 7 of them... :D

Stoop Dawg

11/14/2006, 02:01 PM

Not when you have 7 of them... :D

7 what? 7 times that a bunch of clowns who don't even watch the games hurriedly filled out a ballot that said that in their OPINION we were the best team that year?

Bogus.

OSUAggie

11/14/2006, 02:02 PM

Not when you have 7 of them... :D

haha i was about to say...

MamaMia

11/14/2006, 02:13 PM

Two factors that do seem to hurt OU in voters' minds: the Big 12 isn't that strong, and the Big East is surprisingly good.

"This year," wrote Herb Gould of the Chicago Sun-Times (15th), "the focus is elsewhere."

"It's not Oklahoma's fault, it's their conference," replied SI.com's Stewart Mandel (14th). "There isn't a lot of respect for the teams in that league outside of OU and Texas, so beating them doesn't make the same kind of impression as, say, Arkansas beating Tennessee or Rutgers beating Louisville."
The sports guy types come out with this same lame nonsense every single year, yet I never hear any retractions made during the Bowl game season when the Big XII teams are kicking everybody's boob booms up one side of the field and down the other. :rolleyes:

We are down in the polls for one reason and one reason only.
~Its because the majority of the voters and the media type sports commentators either rooted for, or played for, a team who we totally embarrassed at one time or another, and *gasp*... how dare a little biddy ole state like Oklahoma do such a thing. Because we are OU, we have historically had to play twice as well to get the same amount of respect out of these clowns as most teams.

Boomer.....

11/14/2006, 02:13 PM

If all of the people have us ranked around 13 or 14 with some in the top 10, why are we still ranked only 16. Yes there are some who have us around 17, but there must be a lot of voters who have us lower than that. All of the power rankings have us around 14, so what gives? Who is screwing us with a very low ranking?

BoonesFarmSooner

11/14/2006, 02:23 PM

Some idiot who writes for a New Orleans paper has us 24th...

Ash

11/14/2006, 02:27 PM

Basically, confirms my suspsicion. With a few exceptions, AP voters are gutless uninformed turds.

RRWSooner

11/14/2006, 02:27 PM

EVERYONE hates us. Lets just accept it and keep winning.

humblesooner

11/14/2006, 02:30 PM

The sports guy types come out with this same lame nonsense every single year, yet I never hear any retractions made during the Bowl game season when the Big XII teams are kicking everybody's boob booms up one side of the field and down the other. :rolleyes:

We are down in the polls for one reason and one reason only.
~Its because the majority of the voters and the media type sports commentators either rooted for, or played for, a team who we totally embarrassed at one time or another, and *gasp*... how dare a little biddy ole state like Oklahoma do such a thing. Because we are OU, we have historically had to play twice as well to get the same amount of respect out of these clowns as most teams.

WTH are "boob booms"?

tbl

11/14/2006, 02:36 PM

7 what? 7 times that a bunch of clowns who don't even watch the games hurriedly filled out a ballot that said that in their OPINION we were the best team that year?

Bogus.
http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/christmas-carol/1951-xmas-humbug-scrooge.jpg

caphorns

11/14/2006, 02:43 PM

TUSooner

11/14/2006, 02:43 PM

Some idiot who writes for a New Orleans paper has us 24th...
That's the guy, Kleinpeter, who told me in an email that it was an oversight. He somehow "got it into his head" that OU had lost Saturday and he never rechecked. If we beat Baylor, he promises to fix it next week. :rolleyes:

MamaMia

11/14/2006, 02:44 PM

WTH are "boob booms"?You know, tushies. ;)

Ash

11/14/2006, 02:47 PM

That's the guy, Kleinpeter, who told me in an email that it was an oversight. He somehow "got it into his head" that OU had lost Saturday and he never rechecked. If we beat Baylor, he promises to fix it next week. :rolleyes:

IF we beat Baylor...heh.

Widescreen

11/14/2006, 02:54 PM

And Bud Withers (14th), a columnist for the Seattle Times, replied, "if the replay guy (Gordon Riese) had just used five minutes in the Oregon-Oklahoma game to get it right rather than feel hurried about it, Oklahoma could well be in the national-title picture as a one-loss team."
Translation: OU got screwed and should be in consideration for a title. But I'm still voting them #14.

:mad:

Oh, and why does the AP even have a poll anymore. Their stated reason for leaving the BCS was because they didn't want to be in the business of manufacturing news. If that's true, WHY ARE THEY STILL CROWNING A NATIONAL CHAMPION???????????

crawfish

11/14/2006, 02:55 PM

IronSooner

11/14/2006, 02:55 PM

When you consider that the teams in our conference have been breaking in alot of youngsters this year, we've done alright. I think the Big 12 stands a chance of being THE conference in a couple of years. That is, if ESPN will allow it.

I think next season will be a good one for the Big 12. This year is a tuneup for a couple teams...aTm could be better with their skill guys getting a little older (coaching will still suck), KSU and Mizzou should be improved over this year, UT with Colt as a sophomore should continue to be solid, OU will be if we can find a QB, Tech will finally return a QB, I think we could make some noise next year.

The past couple seasons the SEC has gotten a lot of hype and kept their teams in the top 15. Herbstreit used that as a reason why the Big East hasn't gotten as much respect this year, but all other conferences face that. The SEC is right now looked upon as the hardest conference with a pool of several others below it. It will be interesting next season to see if the Big 12 gets similar credit.

Octavian

11/14/2006, 02:56 PM

Oh, and why does the AP even have a poll anymore. Their stated reason for leaving the BCS was because they didn't want to be in the business of manufacturing news. If that's true, WHY ARE THEY STILL CROWNING A NATIONAL CHAMPION???????????

USC can't crown itself.

It's not like they're Alabama. ;)

MamaMia

11/14/2006, 03:28 PM

Yeah, but they know far better than other, less biased things. You know, like strength of schedule. :rolleyes: OUs SOS has been respectable, as well as the SOS of other Big XII teams. Its saved us a couple of times recently. Nowadays though, because of all the complaint induced tweaking, the SOS doesn't count for as much as it use to. :rolleyes:

Harry Beanbag

11/14/2006, 04:10 PM

MiccoMacey

11/14/2006, 04:25 PM

It.

Doesn't.

Matter.

In three weeks, these things will work themselves out.

We win out, and we play in January.

n8v_ndn

11/14/2006, 04:25 PM

You see, all this human subjectivety is what makes me respect the computer rankings. Ignoring the terrible writers' bias....I always imagine pimply-faced assistants having the coaches ballots thrown at them for homework cuz coach jockitch needs to watch film.

TUSooner

11/14/2006, 04:47 PM

Is that really his name? That's perfect. :)
Now now. :) Let's not be too hard on the guy.

He was nice of enough to email me and explain what happened.

Harry Beanbag

11/14/2006, 04:56 PM

Now now. :) Let's not be too hard on the guy.

He was nice of enough to email me and explain what happened.

I don't speak German so I went to one of those translator thingies on the innerweb. Apparently, the German word "klein" means "small" in English. It just doesn't get any better than that. :D

TUSooner

11/14/2006, 05:00 PM

I don't speak German so I went to one of those translator thingies on the innerweb. Apparently, the German word "klein" means "small" in English. It just doesn't get any better than that. :D
Ja.

Harry Beanbag

11/14/2006, 05:02 PM

Here's a useful linky...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/onlinenews.ap.org/collegefootball_rankings/voters.php?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

jwlynn64

11/14/2006, 05:13 PM

College football rankings - as well as so-called "National Championships" - are a joke.

That's why every major college would trade three other national titles in any sport (except maybe Basketball) for one Football MNC (so called of not).

Football is the only sport that actually tries to crown the best team. Not just the best team in the last tournament of the year. That is why each game in the regular season is so important.

Octavian

11/14/2006, 05:23 PM

That's why every major college would trade three other national titles in any sport (except maybe Basketball) for one Football MNC (so called of not).

Football is the only sport that actually tries to crown the best team. Not just the best team in the last tournament of the year. That is why each game in the regular season is so important.

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/9646/untitledeg0.png (http://imageshack.us)

OSUAggie

11/14/2006, 05:25 PM

Football tries so hard to crown the best team that they allow several champions in a season...

Stoop Dawg

11/14/2006, 05:30 PM

Football is the only sport that actually tries to crown the best team. Not just the best team in the last tournament of the year. That is why each game in the regular season is so important.

I can respect that point of view - if you're a big fan of figure skating and diving.

For anyone who thinks that the "best team" is determined by head-to-head competition on the field of play - not so much.

Stoop Dawg

11/14/2006, 05:35 PM

And if the "best team" is really being crowned champion, why is there controversy almost every single year? For example, who was the "best team" in 2003?

Taxman71

11/14/2006, 05:40 PM

WTH are "boob booms"?

Boom Boom Belinda?

http://overtorqued.net/forum/images/smilies/JJ.jpg

OSUAggie

11/14/2006, 05:46 PM

There are downfalls to every way that crowns a champion... There were at least 3 national champions in the '80s in college basketball that were not the best teams in the country. There are way too many examples in football, but I'll take the 2003 OU team during the regular season over any football team I've seen .... ever. 1998 K-State was a pretty good team. The only way to "crown" a champion that draws the least amount of controversy is by playing a series of games to determine who should move to the next round. College baseball might have the best system for this...

But a series of games is what sets football apart from the others. You have to give each team a week in between games, so a series is not possible. The next, most logical, solution would be a playoff. College football is the only sport I can think of that doesn't have some sort of playoff. And that's fine, it's what makes it unique. I would rather watch a bunch of bowl games than a playoff series.... I think... I'm starting to sway more towards the playoff idea, but only b/c of how many f'ing bowl games there are now... It has cheapened the sport, I think (while at the same time made it more profitable).

MiccoMacey

11/14/2006, 06:02 PM

You only need one extra week for a playoff. And that can be played during the down time of the bowl waiting period.

Have a playoff with only four teams. Yeah, yeah, I know, what about the fifth team? Well, there will always be a rumble about who got left out, but at least if you limit it to only four teams you can't have the fiasco bball could have (65th best team).

Your NC game can be played at the end of the year like usual. It will be the winners of the semi-finals game played sometime in mid-December.

jwlynn64

11/15/2006, 12:04 AM

If your playoff leaves even one deserving team out, then it is no better than the current system. Some years there is a clear cut #1 and 2, some years not. Who is the clear cut #2 this year. How about #4?

A 16 team playoff might actually work but I'm not convinced that it will ever happen in my lifetime (and I'm not that old). Also, what happens when the clear cut #1, loses their star quarterback to a #16 ranked team during forth quarter of their first round game? That team is now at a distinct disadvantage in the tournament.

Maybe we should crown the regular season champ before the bowl games and make the tournament champion just the tournament champion like we do in Big XII basketball. Seems like that would create controvery as well.

Would a tournament do away with the controvery that we have now? Probably but it sure wouldn't guarantee that the best team wins the title any more than our current system does and I believe that it would actually result in the season's best team actually winning the title less frequently but of course that is just my opinion.

Crucifax Autumn

11/15/2006, 12:17 AM

I'd still prefer to see a playoff, despite any flaws it may have. At least then there wouldn't be as much question as there is now.

jwlynn64

11/15/2006, 12:32 AM

Crucifax Autumn

11/15/2006, 12:44 AM

The fact is that at least it would be decided on the field, even if it was "best in the tournament". The tournament participants would be the result of your viewpoint and then the tournament itself would determine who is most able to win a few games in a row against the best finishers in the old system.

Seems to me that both parts of the year would matter. We aren't talking NBA playoffs where the top 80% of all teams gets in.

jwlynn64

11/15/2006, 01:16 AM

Would there be a limit to how many teams from one conference get in? Would you use human polls or computer rankings to determine who gets in? Would a no loss Boise State get in over a two loss OU or Texas?

How do you think that any of the questions that we have now would be answered by a playoff. It would have all the flaws of the current system plus whatever injuries or officiating errors would throw in.

The thing that separates NCAA football from all the other sports is the fact that it tries to actually crown the best team. Flawed though it may be, I like that fact.

Crucifax Autumn

11/15/2006, 01:22 AM

Do you work for the Orange Bowl?

jwlynn64

11/15/2006, 01:41 AM

Do you work for the Orange Bowl?
:D

No. I just like the concept of actually trying to determine who the best team was over the course of the season and not just to give them the #1 seed in the end of year tournament.

I agree that the system has major problems right now. More so than a few years ago when the human polls didn't count as much.

I think that the system could be fixed by giving more influence to the computer rankings. To them, a loss in November is no worse than one in September. They actually look at factors like SOS.

Of course this year they would look at the UO game the same as the Texas game but it doesn't look like the pollsters give us any benefit of the doubt on that one either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a end of year tournament is a bad thing but I like the current system better (with a few tweaks). Everything I've mentioned before is just my opinion and it is subject to change if I hear a persuasive argument. I'm just trying to give you a few nuggets to think about as well.

Sooner_Havok

11/15/2006, 01:53 AM

we'll see how much the big xii sucks this year in the bowl games

Anyone else remember last year when espn was pimping that conference bowl championship thing? They wouldn't shut up about what conferences where doing in their bowl games. Until OU and Uterus won, making the Big 12 the conference with the best record. After that, not a word was spoken of it. No standings were shown, and no mention was made that the Big 12 had put together a better bowl record than the SEC, PAC-10, Big Televen, ACC, and Big Least! I think the ACC had the same winning% as we did, but our wins came against higher ranked teams.

Crucifax Autumn

11/15/2006, 02:00 AM

I actually totally agree with you about the computer polls. I feel that the more those and SOS have been weakened, the worse the system has become. I actually used to think that the BCS would be the thing to save college football, but as long as teams with media power can tweak the rules every time they feel screwed, there is a problem.

The reason I back a playoff is that no matter which whiner managed to change the BCS formula last, there would still be a chance for those that managed to do their best but fall prey to that "who whined more" system would be able to prove their argument or at least lose it in a game.

I'd personally like to be able to agree with you, but until there is an agreed upon system that places a heavier burden on the computers in a sensible way and a system that somehow manages to allow for things like what happened in Oregon, we need a playoff, even if it extends the season a few weeks.

Crucifax Autumn

11/15/2006, 02:03 AM

Anyone else remember last year when espn was pimping that conference bowl championship thing? They wouldn't shut up about what conferences where doing in their bowl games. Until OU and Uterus won, making the Big 12 the conference with the best record. After that, not a word was spoken of it. No standings were shown, and no mention was made that the Big 12 had put together a better bowl record than the SEC, PAC-10, Big Televen, ACC, and Big Least! I think the ACC had the same winning% as we did, but our wins came against higher ranked teams.

I remember that and if it happens again, we need to go all out to make sure they mention it.

I'm sure if we all banded together with the rest of the conference we'd be able to make an impact and get the viewpoint and reality out there.

Sooner_Havok

11/15/2006, 02:08 AM

The thing I think most people forget about is there would still be controversy no matter what happens. If you take the top 8 teams, and 8 and 9 have the same record and are only separated by .002 points, then what? Next year they would want a 16 team playoff. Again, not much difference between 16 and 17. What then? 32? 64? No matter what system is adopted there will always be the team that got "screwed"

jwlynn64

11/15/2006, 02:34 AM

The best idea that I've heard about and I would back would be for the NCAA to make eight 12 teams super conferences. The eight conference winners would go to a playoff. That takes polls completely out of the system.

Of course, the super conferences would have to be chosen pretty carefully to try and even out them out strenght wise but I think that it could be done geographically.

The 20 or so teams that didn't make the 12 super conferences would compete in Div. II for a chance to move up and the weakest teams from the super confernces would be relegated down to Div. II. That way, only the better teams would stay in the Super Conferences.

Sooner_Havok

11/15/2006, 02:37 AM

SOONER44EVER

11/15/2006, 02:52 AM

Any playoff system or BCS system will be controversial as long as:

1) Every conference doesnt have the same amount of teams.
2) Some conferences do and don't have champ. games.
3) Some teams (ND) have special breaks to get into post-season.
4) Officiating/replay rules are different in different conferences.
5) Humans and computers decide teams rather than actual win-loss records.
6) About a million other things I'm obviously forgetting.

Vaevictis

11/15/2006, 06:01 AM

The thing I think most people forget about is there would still be controversy no matter what happens. If you take the top 8 teams, and 8 and 9 have the same record and are only separated by .002 points, then what?

Oh, that's easy: Make it someone else's problem.

Have an N team playoff system (where N is a power of two). Assign each member conference a certain number of berths. The conferences are responsible for determining which teams fill out their berths.

You don't like the fact that your team didn't go to the tourney? Complain to your conference -- they're the one that decided that your team wouldn't go. ;)

And handling ND is easy: You're not a member of a conference. That's your choice. If you don't like it, join a conference. Failing that, go **** yourself.

MiccoMacey

11/15/2006, 06:07 AM

And handling ND is easy: go **** yourself.

Shortened the idea a bit, but I think I like it better. :D

OUinFLA

11/15/2006, 07:29 AM

Maybe we should crown the regular season champ before the bowl games and make the tournament champion just the tournament champion like we do in Big XII basketball. Seems like that would create controvery as well.

.

I think you're onto something here.
Of course it needs some tweaking.

In addition to the regular season champ, and the bowl game champ.....let's just keep those as "coach's poll and AP poll" respectively, you will need to have the obligatory:

ND championship for any ND team that wins at least 2 games a season.

The California championship for the best team on the west coast. Alternately called the USC championship.

The Big East bias championship, voted on by only sportswriters in the NE

The Alabama University championship ..... just give them a championship every year since they already have 254 of them a few more wont make much difference. :D

All the rest of us can just be satisfied with the first two.

I am a relic of football rankings. I liked it the way it was before the BCS. Let the controversy ensue, it gives us lots to talk about in the off-season (or as I refer to it.......dead time)

Oh, and eliminate about 45 of the current bowl games. I can hardly wait on the emergence of the "Oreo Cookie Bowl" pitting some conference's 9th ranked team against another's last place finisher, just so we can determine who is actually the worst team in the country.

stoopified

11/15/2006, 08:59 AM

Jason White's Third Knee

11/15/2006, 09:17 AM

Jason White's Third Knee

11/15/2006, 09:23 AM

I think you're onto something here.
Of course it needs some tweaking.

In addition to the regular season champ, and the bowl game champ.....let's just keep those as "coach's poll and AP poll" respectively, you will need to have the obligatory:

ND championship for any ND team that wins at least 2 games a season.

The California championship for the best team on the west coast. Alternately called the USC championship.

The Big East bias championship, voted on by only sportswriters in the NE

The Alabama University championship ..... just give them a championship every year since they already have 254 of them a few more wont make much difference. :D

All the rest of us can just be satisfied with the first two.

I am a relic of football rankings. I liked it the way it was before the BCS. Let the controversy ensue, it gives us lots to talk about in the off-season (or as I refer to it.......dead time)

Oh, and eliminate about 45 of the current bowl games. I can hardly wait on the emergence of the "Oreo Cookie Bowl" pitting some conference's 9th ranked team against another's last place finisher, just so we can determine who is actually the worst team in the country.

Allow me to add to your scenario. Every 4 years usc gets to look back at all the seasons and retroactively name themselves champion for some year that they did well. Cool?

MamaMia

11/15/2006, 10:06 AM

Anyone else remember last year when espn was pimping that conference bowl championship thing? They wouldn't shut up about what conferences where doing in their bowl games. Until OU and Uterus won, making the Big 12 the conference with the best record. After that, not a word was spoken of it. No standings were shown, and no mention was made that the Big 12 had put together a better bowl record than the SEC, PAC-10, Big Televen, ACC, and Big Least! I think the ACC had the same winning% as we did, but our wins came against higher ranked teams.
I certainly do remember. Its so typical of the way ESPN deals with any news of accomplishment coming out of the Big XII. For the most part, the Big XII has been a powerhouse, and most members of the sports media have downplayed that fact for decades. Recently however, OU losing the NC two years in a row, once to LSU and then in an embarrassing way to USC didn't help our cause at all.

OUinFLA

11/15/2006, 11:13 AM

Allow me to add to your scenario. Every 4 years usc gets to look back at all the seasons and retroactively name themselves champion for some year that they did well. Cool?

I cant believe that didnt occur to me.
Thanks for bringing that up.

I think the tweaking is coming along nicely.
I believe our objective is to let USC & ND just flip a coin for the MNC at the begining of the year, not play any games, no one gets hurt, and just to be fair, Alabama gets a MNC every year.

sound about right?

Stoop Dawg

11/15/2006, 02:23 PM

The thing I think most people forget about is there would still be controversy no matter what happens. If you take the top 8 teams, and 8 and 9 have the same record and are only separated by .002 points, then what? Next year they would want a 16 team playoff. Again, not much difference between 16 and 17. What then? 32? 64? No matter what system is adopted there will always be the team that got "screwed"

In my opinion, controversy over who is #16 is much preferable to controversy over who is #1.

Stoop Dawg

11/15/2006, 02:31 PM

Would a tournament do away with the controvery that we have now? Probably but it sure wouldn't guarantee that the best team wins the title any more than our current system does and I believe that it would actually result in the season's best team actually winning the title less frequently but of course that is just my opinion.

My opinion is different. In my opinion, the "best team" should be able to string together 4 wins over high level opponents. If they can't (and some other team obviously did), then I have a hard time calling them the "best team".

Stoop Dawg

11/15/2006, 02:37 PM

How do you mean. The playoff would only make the question of who is the best team irrelevant and wouldn't even attempt to answer it.

The only question a playoff answers is what team was the best in the tournament.

It'll be great when OSU starts their second string quarterback this weekend or pulls him in the second half because they don't want to risk injury before the only important part of the season (the playoffs). Gotta love November football when the games used to matter.

In an 8 team playoff every single game of the regular season remains extremely important. Even if you've already secured a spot, home field advantage is absolutely huge in college football. Not only for the revenue it would bring (and we all know college football is all about money), but also for the on-the-field advantage. So, OSU has to make a decision. Play Troy the whole game and secure home field advantage, or sit him out and risk a first round game on the road. Either choice is great fodder for the talking heads. Maybe they sit him out the FIRST half, then bring him in at the end to mount a heroic come-from-behind victory? Maybe they're good enough to beat Michigan without him. That would certainly make a statement about them being the "best team". Sorry, but I don't see a down side.

OSUAggie

11/15/2006, 02:48 PM

I certainly do remember. Its so typical of the way ESPN deals with any news of accomplishment coming out of the Big XII. For the most part, the Big XII has been a powerhouse, and most members of the sports media have downplayed that fact for decades. Recently however, OU losing the NC two years in a row, once to LSU and then in an embarrassing way to USC didn't help our cause at all.

I think there's a lot to that... The two OU losses in the BCS title game (1 blowout, 1 that everyone nationally thinks was a blowout even though OU was throwing into the endzone at the end of the game to go to OT) coupled with the Nebraska debacle in 2001 has hurt the Big XII's reputation as far as being elite is concerned. I think Texas has restored that a bit, and them getting beat by K-State after reeling off 21 straight in conference or whatever it was will also help the reputation of the conference, depending on how Texas fares in its bowl.

Harry Beanbag

11/15/2006, 03:23 PM

Allow me to add to your scenario. Every 4 years usc gets to look back at all the seasons and retroactively name themselves champion for some year that they did well. Cool?

They already do that.

TopDawg

11/15/2006, 03:55 PM

Anyone think that we wouldn't lay the wood on Rutgers or Louisville? Please.

What the hell is Louisville anyway? Sounds to french to take seriously. I've seen them play this year. They have the worst defense in history... like the french.

Their defense has allowed 0.6 more points per game than us against teams who have combined to go 43-31 (.581) while we've done it against teams who have combined to go 47-41 (.534).

jwlynn64

11/15/2006, 04:42 PM

My opinion is different. In my opinion, the "best team" should be able to string together 4 wins over high level opponents. If they can't (and some other team obviously did), then I have a hard time calling them the "best team".

Your absolutely correct. The best team in the tournament would have done that. Of course that has absolutly no bearing on how the teams played in the regular season.

What your really saying is that a two loss team that makes it to the playoffs will prove it's the best team if it goes undefeated the last four games of the season but a no loss team that happens to lose the final game of the season is not the best team. This is true even if the no loss team beat the two teams that beat the other team. :confused:

Can follow that logic but you're welcome to it. I still say that a tournament only proves who won the tournament and doesn't address the question of who was the best team over the entire course of the season.

TopDawg

11/15/2006, 06:15 PM

I still say that a tournament only proves who won the tournament and doesn't address the question of who was the best team over the entire course of the season.

Nothing will ever do that because "best" is subjective. The best (heh) we can do, is to try to figure out a system that will crown the most deserving team. "Most deserving" is still subjective, but at least it's easier to measure and come to an agreement on.

With the current system, when the regular season comes to an end, we have to decide which two teams, out of 119, are the most deserving for one shot at the national title. That's a hard task. In an 8 (or 16)-team tournament, it becomes a little bit easier to decide which teams are deserving of that chance. Sure, we'd still have the tough task of deciding whether #9 (or #17) is more deserving than #8 (or #16), but it's a better problem...and probably usually easier to get "right"...than deciding whether #3 is more deserving than #2.

Once the tournament field is set, there is a very clear, objective set of circumstances that each team has to meet to be crowned champion: 3 (or 4) wins in a row. You take "the best" and make them play each other and whoever comes out on top is most deserving.

Big Red Ron

11/15/2006, 10:12 PM

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/9646/untitledeg0.png (http://http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/9646/untitledeg0.png):D

birddog

11/15/2006, 10:27 PM

How do you mean. The playoff would only make the question of who is the best team irrelevant and wouldn't even attempt to answer it.

The only question a playoff answers is what team was the best in the tournament.

It'll be great when OSU starts their second string quarterback this weekend or pulls him in the second half because they don't want to risk injury before the only important part of the season (the playoffs). Gotta love November football when the games used to matter.

teams would still have to fight to get into the playoffs. how about the teams that started off poorly but came on strong late in the season, teams like us? don't you think that would make for some good november football?

people argue that in the current system that every game is like a playoff game. that wouldn't change with a playoff system. think of all the 1-2 loss teams every year. if you are a 2 loss team and lose your 3rd game on the last day of the season, you're probably booted out. every game would still be of equal importance.

PLAYOFFS NOW!!

TopDawg

11/15/2006, 10:38 PM

people argue that in the current system that every game is like a playoff game. that wouldn't change with a playoff system. think of all the 1-2 loss teams every year. if you are a 2 loss team and lose your 3rd game on the last day of the season, you're probably booted out. every game would still be of equal importance.

You're right, but you're wrong. Every game would not still be of equal importance. For exactly the same reasons that you list above, some games would be of much MORE importance.

For instance, right now the only thing on the line when Arkansas plays LSU, besides bragging rights, is Arkansas' chance at a national title. Sure, it's no small thing and it's an important game, but if there was as 8-team playoff, this game would likely be for a spot in that playoff. Winner in. Loser out. The importance of that game immediately doubles...at least.

birddog

11/15/2006, 10:43 PM

sorry, i forgot atleast.;)

Stoop Dawg

11/15/2006, 11:21 PM

With the current system, when the regular season comes to an end, we have to decide which two teams, out of 119, are the most deserving for one shot at the national title.

Wrong-o good buddy. Under the current system you don't even have to be one of those two teams to claim a National Championship. It's completely subjective. Completely.

Sooner_Havok

11/15/2006, 11:40 PM

How about this. Each of the 119 teams in the NCAA are worth 'x' amount of points based off their strength of schedule. At the beginning of the year each team starts off with 100 points. If you win, you stay at the point level you started at, but if you loose, you loose 10 points. Then, at the end of the year each team get's 10% of the the points that each team they beat has accumulated throughout the season added to their score. Top two point holders play eachother at the end of the year to determine the champion.

Does that make sense to anyone else, cause I am not sure it makes sense to me any more....

TopDawg

11/16/2006, 12:12 PM

Wrong-o good buddy. Under the current system you don't even have to be one of those two teams to claim a National Championship. It's completely subjective. Completely.

I said "the national title" not "a national title." We all know that anybody can claim a national title.

leavingthezoo

11/16/2006, 02:19 PM

I said "the national title" not "a national title." We all know that anybody can claim a national title.

i have like... 14 of 'em in my closet.

Harris County Sooner

11/16/2006, 04:22 PM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/fbc/4338742.html

Texas Golfer

11/16/2006, 05:51 PM

I can, somewhat, understand the pollsters' situation about whether or not to consider us a one-loss or a two-loss team. Why not split the difference? Why not consider us a 1.5-loss team. Rank us lower than the other one-loss teams but higher than the other two-loss teams?

Harris County Sooner

11/16/2006, 08:27 PM