BCS Poll - 10/29/2006

[iPapi]

As of now there is a big gap between 3 & 4. I'm not sure why that is, but the more I see the way the BCS is playing out the more I dislike it.

 

I meant to say 2 & 3....my bad.

[iPapi]

UT has played Ohio State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. I'm not sure if even Miami is better than any of those 4. No one on WVU's schedule even comes close.

 

USC has played Arkansas,Nebraska,and Washington. Again, 3 teams that none of the 3 Big East schools have matched up with on a comparable basis.

 

IMO a team cannot be rewarded when they have one tough team to play.

 

That's just me.

 

USC beating Arkansas was fluke, and the other teams are mediocre at best, with the exception of the Hogs & Buckeyes.

[cshs81]

USC beating Arkansas was fluke, and the other teams are mediocre at best, with the exception of the Hogs & Buckeyes.

 

While we can argue the semantics of "mediocre," we cannot argue that these mediocre team sare still better than the teams that the big 3 of the BEAST have played. You MUST reward teams for challenging themselves. The big 3 have not done that and IMO should not be rewarded.

 

If we're simply going to reward teams for being undefeated, the post season will be a waste of time and the big conferences regular season will be the championship.

[cshs81]

Right but they have done all they can, by beating who is in front of them. If they continue to do so, then they will have done what was put in front of them, and their SOS will be much closer to FLA's at that time. Not the same, but close enough to offset with the loss.

 

Will not the loser of Ohio State/Michigan also have their SOS go up drastically? Unless its a blowout and all of the polls drop the loser to below #5, I can easily see a rematch. If you aslo assume ND is going to continue to win, Michigan's SOS goes up even more.

 

I'm really curious as to how this rematch WILL NOT happen.

[Getslow]

With all due respect, you're simply advocating weak scheduling. You cannot penalize teams for stepping up and playing tough teams. That would cheapen the championship.

 

I'm not advocating weak scheduling. I'm saying that to assume one team is better than another based on their playing in a tougher conference is problematic. Besides, everyone schedules weak when they can. Let's take a look at the teams you mentioned.

 

Cited One-loss teams' Out-of-Conference schedules:

USC: Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame... I'll give you this one.

Florida:Southern Miss, Central Florida, Florida State... one "decent" game.

LSU: Louisiana-Lafayette, Arizona, Tulane, Fresno State... certainly no challenge here.

Auburn: Washington State, Buffalo, Tulane, Arkansas State... anyone see a pattern?

Texas: North Texas, Ohio State, Rice, Sam Houston State... DRUBBED by the only good team in sight.

 

 

Scheduling is not at issue here... they're all pathetic in their own unique way. The issue is that teams cannot help what conference they play in during a given season. There are teams that everyone HAS to play.

 

When these teams do schedule a capable opponent, it always comes from a major conference so that the excuses can come flying and it won't hurt them in the polls too much. Think any of them want to come close to the small-time powerhouses like TCU and Boise State? Nope, because it's embarassing and season-ending when the red-headed stepchild whips his old man.

 

This is at the root of my deep, deep hatred of the BCS. Weak scheduling isn't cheapening the championship, the deserving teams not getting their shot at the trophy is.

[RockPride]

The problem with this logic is that you're using two other teams (WVU and Rutgers) as your basis for improving their SOS when none of the 3 have proven anything this season other than they're better than bad teams (including my beloved UK). IMO you cannot reward teams for great records when they do not have to be tested on a weekly basis.

 

I'd put OSU, Mich, Texas, USC, Florida, Auburn, and LSU in front of the 3 Big East schools simply because they've proven themselves.

You're right, but they can be rewarded for their strong BCS ranking.....#3 and #12....that's all that is going to matter in the end.

[RockPride]

The problem with this logic is that you're using two other teams (WVU and Rutgers) as your basis for improving their SOS when none of the 3 have proven anything this season other than they're better than bad teams (including my beloved UK). IMO you cannot reward teams for great records when they do not have to be tested on a weekly basis.

 

I'd put OSU, Mich, Texas, USC, Florida, Auburn, and LSU in front of the 3 Big East schools simply because they've proven themselves.

USC, Texas, and LSU haven't proven anything, IMO.

[RockPride]

IMO a team cannot be rewarded when they have one tough team to play.

 

That's just me.

U of L has done what's been asked of it....and Miami, for better or worse has been beaten by 3 ranked teams (at least at the time), they did well against Ga Tech, which would've put them back in the Top 25, which in turn would've propelled UL even higher up...keep in mind that U of L is doing all of this without 1 Heisman trophy candidate, and another that is now 100% back from being on the mend. They have done (so far) what is necessary, but that only puts them halfway there. If OSU beat UM then, UM will have had their shot, it's time for someone else, and you know that the voters will think that way as well. If that game was first, then maybe the argument would hold more water.

[RockPride]

While we can argue the semantics of "mediocre," we cannot argue that these mediocre team sare still better than the teams that the big 3 of the BEAST have played. You MUST reward teams for challenging themselves. The big 3 have not done that and IMO should not be rewarded.

 

If we're simply going to reward teams for being undefeated, the post season will be a waste of time and the big conferences regular season will be the championship.

The SEC only plays each other....if they want to garner that monster attention...schedule hard out of conference....

[cshs81]

U of L has done what's been asked of it....and Miami, for better or worse has been beaten by 3 ranked teams (at least at the time), they did well against Ga Tech, which would've put them back in the Top 25, which in turn would've propelled UL even higher up...keep in mind that U of L is doing all of this without 1 Heisman trophy candidate, and another that is now 100% back from being on the mend. They have done (so far) what is necessary, but that only puts them halfway there. If OSU beat UM then, UM will have had their shot, it's time for someone else, and you know that the voters will think that way as well. If that game was first, then maybe the argument would hold more water.

 

Your logic/thinking that UM "had their chance" so they don't deserve to be #2 is assinine. Fans want the two best teams to play in the championship. The number of losses on their schedule is irrelevant to the intelligent fan. Fans want the team holding the big trophy to have EARNED it by proving they are worthy of the crown. Winning all of your games in and of itself does not prove anything other than you're better than the teams you've played. Should one of the teams from the BEAST make the championship game, we'll see a new formula for future championships.

 

"We beat who was on our schedule" is not enough if your conference stinks. You had better make up for your poor conference with a strong OOC schedule which NONE of the 3 BEAST teams have done.

[cshs81]

USC, Texas, and LSU haven't proven anything, IMO.

 

Not to one who is looking for UL to back its way into the championship game.

[cshs81]

Will not the loser of Ohio State/Michigan also have their SOS go up drastically? Unless its a blowout and all of the polls drop the loser to below #5, I can easily see a rematch. If you aslo assume ND is going to continue to win, Michigan's SOS goes up even more.

 

I'm really curious as to how this rematch WILL NOT happen.

 

RP - you've quoted every other quote of mine but left this one out.

 

In your mind, how do you account for the loser of this game's SOS increasing greatly and, unless its a blowout, their ranking not falling very far? IMO this scenario mathematically puts the loser back in the championship game against the winner.

 

I'm not asking what you HOPE to happen but , rather, to tell me what has to happen in order to offset their gained points due to SOS.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

Sorry to arrive late at the Dance, but here goes. There was a thread about a month ago or so and someone (UKMF maybe?) said they thought the OSU / UM loser would stay in the Top 2 and most posters routinely assaulted that stance. At the time, without posting, I tended to think that made some sense. (Not that it was right, but that it happening seemed logical)

 

Now after looking at the disparity between #2 and #3 (as iPapi mentioned), it looks highly likely. Keep in mind that as Notre Dame keeps winning, that keeps propping up Michigan's computer numbers. If ND was to run the table, and barring UM losing horribly, I think UM playing OSU back-to-back is highly likely. They would probably stay in the Top 4 (of the polls), their computer number would be (hip reference) "off the hook," and their SOS would clearly not be a question. I think an undefeated WVA team would be close (based on being #3 and under this assumption having defeated #5 UL) or an undefeated UL would be a bit further back.

 

Not only do I think it may happen, I think barring something strange on that Saturday, it's likely. We'll know the answer decisively next Sunday night when we can all see the gap between Michigan and the winner of Thursday's game. If it's nearly as far as it is now than it becomes almost a mathematical certainty.

[cshs81]

Not only do I think it may happen, I think barring something strange on that Saturday, it's likely. We'll know the answer decisively next Sunday night when we can all see the gap between Michigan and the winner of Thursday's game. If it's nearly as far as it is now than it becomes almost a mathematical certainty.

 

IMO its going to take many voters in all of the polls making a conscientious decision to drop the loser of the OSU/Mich game considerably in order for the BCS formula not to spit out a rematch.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

IMO its going to take many voters in all of the polls making a conscientious decision to drop the loser of the OSU/Mich game considerably in order for the BCS formula not to spit out a rematch.

Maybe. What I don't understand is this: if they are clearly the best two teams, barring a white-washing by one team or the other, why shouldn't they play on 1/8/07 for the whole ball of wax?