BCS = CF

[Brother Brian]

OK, I know that nothing's going to change. The NCAA likes the way their bread is buttered. The only real point of the BCS has been to ensure that the 1&2 ranked teams played. (Whereas before, they could end up in different bowls due to the invitation system.)

But come on, if any year begged for a playoff, this year does. In the top 8 you have 7 1 loss teams. Of those, 4 of the 7 lost to another team that finished in the top 8. The 8th team hasn't lost this year, albeit against lesser quality teams.

Let's assume an Oklahoma victory over Florida, and Texas wins their bowl game.

Texas ends with the same record and quality of opposition as Oklahoma.

Texas beat Oklahoma.

Who is the better team?

Subjective ranking just doesn't work.

[Wook]

There are 2 undefeated teams in the top 10. If they win their respective bowl games they'll have established that they're capable of competing on the top level and deserve a *chance* for a title. This current system is about money and it's dumb. No playoff system sucks.

[Brother Brian]

There are 2 undefeated teams in the top 10. If they win their respective bowl games they'll have established that they're capable of competing on the top level and deserve a *chance* for a title. This current system is about money and it's dumb. No playoff system sucks.

Who's Boisie State Playing?

Utah vs. Bama will show if Utah was done wrong by not being considered. On the other hand, I think 'bama is going to put a whooping on Utah.

[Kalzazz]

OU lost to Texas 35-45
Texas Tech beat Texas, 39-33
OU beat Texas Tech, 65-21

As for other teams they both played
Missouri OU 62-21, Texas 56-31
Oklahoma St OU 61-41 Texas 28-24
Baylor OU 49-17 Texas 45-21
Kansas OU 45-31 Texas 35-7
Texas A&M OU 66-28 Texas 49-9

Adding all the games up
OU 383-204, 1.88 pt scored per pt allowed
Texas 291-166, 1.75 pt scored per pt allowed

So, Im happy enough OU is ahead of Texas (in my perfectly, completely oh so unbiased way of course)

[Brother Brian]

OU lost to Texas 35-45
Texas Tech beat Texas, 39-33
OU beat Texas Tech, 65-21

As for other teams they both played
Missouri OU 62-21, Texas 56-31
Oklahoma St OU 61-41 Texas 28-24
Baylor OU 49-17 Texas 45-21
Kansas OU 45-31 Texas 35-7
Texas A&M OU 66-28 Texas 49-9

Adding all the games up
OU 383-204, 1.88 pt scored per pt allowed
Texas 291-166, 1.75 pt scored per pt allowed

So, Im happy enough OU is ahead of Texas (in my perfectly, completely oh so unbiased way of course)


So the team that runs up the score on weak shared opponents is the better team? I thought running up the score was bad?

OU is going to the BCS Title Game for the same reason Floriday is. They got lucky and lost their games earlier in the season.

Florida lost to Ol' Miss. They don't deserve to be there, IMO. USC has an equally valid claim at any rate.

Texas vs. OU makes more sense to me, but Texas Tech has a legit claim as well, as does Utah at 12-0.

[Kalzazz]

The team that does the better job running up the score wins, Bob Stoops having learned this lesson after all manner of scathing editorials in the student newspaper (the Texas Tech game however I think honestly was a fluke, I watched that, and it was an example of a football team flat out being in the zone, Stoops sent in the reserves after a while or it would have been even more one sided, I think that night OU was so much in the zone they could have matched up against an NFL team. I think OU is still a better team than Texas Tech, but not that much better).

However, as Texas and OU (and anyone else in the picture) were trying to run up the score to impress voters who likely only glance at the box scores, its not an unreasonable measure

[Kalzazz]

Id pick OU and USC if I was picking teams for it, OU has a devastating offense this season, and USC has a devastating defense, it would be a very exciting matchup

[Wook]

Who's Boisie State Playing?

Utah vs. Bama will show if Utah was done wrong by not being considered. On the other hand, I think 'bama is going to put a whooping on Utah.

#11 TCU.

And in order to make their point Utah doesn't have to win, that'd be preferable though, they just have to keep the game close.

[Wook]

Kal,

Any system that actively discourages sportsmanship is a bad thing yes?

[Brother Brian]

#11 TCU.

And in order to make their point Utah doesn't have to win, that'd be preferable though, they just have to keep the game close.

No, I think they have to win. Nobody is saying that Utah isn't good, they are ranked 7 in the nation. The argument is tht there is a step between Good and Elite, and that's where Utah fails.

[Wook]

No, I think they have to win. Nobody is saying that Utah isn't good, they are ranked 7 in the nation. The argument is tht there is a step between Good and Elite, and that's where Utah fails.

Because undefeated isn't good enough. :confused4: Boise St. has been consistently good over the last several years to include a bowl win 2 years ago which was the last time they went undefeated. The difference in the current system between good and elite is a mixture of perception and inertia manufactured from that perception. Absent the ethically bankrupt BCS system there's no reason teams like Boise St. and Utah couldn't regularly compete on the same level as Florida, Alabama, T. Tech, etc...

[Brother Brian]

Because undefeated isn't good enough. :confused4: Boise St. has been consistently good over the last several years to include a bowl win 2 years ago which was the last time they went undefeated. The difference in the current system between good and elite is a mixture of perception and inertia manufactured from that perception. Absent the ethically bankrupt BCS system there's no reason teams like Boise St. and Utah couldn't regularly compete on the same level as Florida, Alabama, T. Tech, etc...

You're not actually going to argue that Boise State played as tough a schedule as Oklahoma, Mizzou, Texas, etc? Are you?

Hell, if undefeated is all it takes, Notre Dame can be a perenneal National Champion. With no conference games, they can play scrub teams from across the country.

Seriously, dude, there's a huge reason why teams like Boisie, Utah, and my beloved Boston College can't compete. The big 12, Pac-10, and SEC are "FOOTBALL SCHOOLS". That is, you go there to play football. I don't mean to dismiss their academic credentials, but at the same time, how many times have they sat their starting QB for grades?

How many millions are in the Recruiting budget?

Other schools, like BC, made a determination that while they value their sports programs to build well rounded student athletes, they weren't going to sell out their principles for it. (See Notre Dame). So with the exception of an occassional hockey title, you're going to see them compete, but not really excell at elite levels.

I mean seriously, give Utah Texas' schedule. Instead of 11-0, you're looking at a 7-4, 6-5 team.

[Wook]

I mean seriously, give Utah Texas' schedule. Instead of 11-0, you're looking at a 7-4, 6-5 team.

Maybe. But a large part of what lets schools compete at that level is a twofold mechanism based around the BCS and top 25 rankings.

First - Yeah they devote a lot of resources to it. Lots of schools devote a lot of resources to it and either do compete well or don't compete well. The level of dedication from the schools administration isn't necessarily indicative of anything other than that they're dedicated to being good at football.

Second - It's a circular hype. Power schools are power schools because they're power schools. :throwup: And power schools are defined by their ability to blow out lesser schools. It's crap.

I'll state it clearly. There is no current objective measure of what is, or is not, a power school. There's just a bunch of hype around a few divisions that have persuaded people that they're studs. In some cases this is obviously overblown. (See: Big 10) In other cases it's simply exaggeration and distortion.

I look forward to having two undefeated 13-0 teams at the end of the season and a "National Champion" that isn't.

[Brother Brian]

Maybe. But a large part of what lets schools compete at that level is a twofold mechanism based around the BCS and top 25 rankings.

First - Yeah they devote a lot of resources to it. Lots of schools devote a lot of resources to it and either do compete well or don't compete well. The level of dedication from the schools administration isn't necessarily indicative of anything other than that they're dedicated to being good at football.

Second - It's a circular hype. Power schools are power schools because they're power schools. :throwup: And power schools are defined by their ability to blow out lesser schools. It's crap.

I'll state it clearly. There is no current objective measure of what is, or is not, a power school. There's just a bunch of hype around a few divisions that have persuaded people that they're studs. In some cases this is obviously overblown. (See: Big 10) In other cases it's simply exaggeration and distortion.

I look forward to having two undefeated 13-0 teams at the end of the season and a "National Champion" that isn't.

No shit. But who's arguing there is?

What is and isn't a Power School, or a Power Conference, is constantly shifting.

While this year thare can be little doubt that the Big 12 pretty much was the toughest conference in Div 1, We've seen the Pac 10, the Big 10, and the SEC all play that role.

That said, there clearly hare have and have not conferences. Mountain West is weak, and it always has been. Their best teams are not on par with the best of bigger conferences.

Is it cyclical? Of course it is. The better your record, the more you get on TV. The more you get on TV, the more exposure you have outside of your local market. The more exposure you get the more likely you are to recruit well. The better your recruit the better your record, etc, ad nausium.

That doesn't mean that the WAC, Moutain West, ACC are as good today as the Big 12/Pac10/SEC.

[Kalzazz]

**** - True. Though Ill admit its pretty cool OU set a new points record

And not all football players for major teams are 'Uugh, Bongo drool and speak in third person and play football!', football requires coherent thought as well (well, maybe not, witness Plaxico Burress)

[Wook]

That doesn't mean that the WAC, Moutain West, ACC are as good today as the Big 12/Pac10/SEC.

3 seasons, 2 undefeated seasons and at least one bowl win.

And Utah going up against the #4 team. We'll see how the bowls go but right now the system is stacked to keep the small number of football factories in business as football factories. And that is what's got to go.

The current system does not establish a national champion and has not ever established a national champion. It does however do exactly what it was designed to do which is make small mountains of cash for the bowls and the football schools that contribute to them.

The damage inherent in that exploitation is rather self evident when we're congratulating OU for deliberately running the score up more, and better, than any other team in history. :sawink2:

[Wook]

This is what should be happening in college football. (http://www.criticalfumble.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15495)

16 teams ensures every school on the top tier gets in. Your BCS teams get in, any undefeated teams that don't have benefit of an entrenched reputation get in, and you round it out with teams that have established merit through some combination of tough schedule and good record.

I think any incentive to running up the score needs to be actively removed.

[Kalzazz]

OU didnt make the 70pt mark sadly however

Hopefully OU's defense remembers to play against Florida, instead of resembling spongecake

[Brother Brian]

Are you actually arguing that you see the WAC/MAC/ACC as being able to compete with the SEC and Big 12? Seriously?

Next you'll tell me that the winner of the special Olympics should get a chance to compete in the real Olympics.


3 seasons, 2 undefeated seasons and at least one bowl win.

And Utah going up against the #4 team. We'll see how the bowls go but right now the system is stacked to keep the small number of football factories in business as football factories. And that is what's got to go.

The current system does not establish a national champion and has not ever established a national champion. It does however do exactly what it was designed to do which is make small mountains of cash for the bowls and the football schools that contribute to them.

The damage inherent in that exploitation is rather self evident when we're congratulating OU for deliberately running the score up more, and better, than any other team in history. :sawink2:

[Brother Brian]

This is what should be happening in college football. (http://www.criticalfumble.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15495)

16 teams ensures every school on the top tier gets in. Your BCS teams get in, any undefeated teams that don't have benefit of an entrenched reputation get in, and you round it out with teams that have established merit through some combination of tough schedule and good record.

I think any incentive to running up the score needs to be actively removed.

Yeah, I read your "little guy gets hosed" scree there too. It's still crap.

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the best teams have congregated into a handful of conferences. I'm sorry that success breeds success.

You want to believe that the experts like the Big 12 for reasons other than their talent and success. I don't know why you think that, because it's fantasy.

[Wook]

Yeah, I read your "little guy gets hosed" scree there too. It's still crap.

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the best teams have congregated into a handful of conferences. I'm sorry that success breeds success.

You want to believe that the experts like the Big 12 for reasons other than their talent and success. I don't know why you think that, because it's fantasy.

No. I don't believe the Big 12 are the experts you think they are. The disparity isn't nearly as large as advertised. The idea of "Power Conferences" is way overblown. Or, if they are experts, their expertise has more to do with public relations than it does football.

[Brother Brian]

No. I don't believe the Big 12 are the experts you think they are. The disparity isn't nearly as large as advertised. The idea of "Power Conferences" is way overblown. Or, if they are experts, their expertise has more to do with public relations than it does football.

You miss parsed what I said.

The experts aren't the conference. They are guys like Lee Korso, Kirk Herbstreet, Tim Brando, etc, etc, etc.

You know, guys who's job it is to analyze college football.

To a man, they tell you that that MAC is far weaker than the big 12, and that the disparity is huge.

Why should I take your word instead?

[Wook]

You miss parsed what I said.

The experts aren't the conference. They are guys like Lee Korso, Kirk Herbstreet, Tim Brando, etc, etc, etc.

You know, guys who's job it is to analyze college football.

To a man, they tell you that that MAC is far weaker than the big 12, and that the disparity is huge.

Why should I take your word instead?

Because they're talking out their ass. They have a vested interest in the system as is. I'm not saying that there is parity between all conferences either. MAC to Big 12 you wouldn't have to do much to persuade me of significant differences. But the whole power conference thing is like the 2 party thing. It's a self perpetuating entity that makes itself true through a nasty bit of circular reasoning. (And a great deal of dinero in keeping things that way.)

The way you'd know how any 2 divisions compared to each other, or even how the divisions compare to each other overall, is to have an actual playoff. The bowl system doesn't care about establishing a champion. It cares about creating the matchups that they think will bring in the most money and the impact that's had upon the integrity of the sport is self evident.

Case in point...

The patriots score 40-50 pts a game and people are calling for Bellichecks head and making comparisions to el Diablo. OU cranks out 62 pts a game and is not only praised but gets a chance at the national title? College football is actively discouraging sportsmanship.

[Brother Brian]

Holy whiplash Batman. If you're going to change directions like that give me a little warning so I can hold on to something.

Of course the 5 big conferences are self perpetuating successes. It doesn't require any sort of nefarious plot though.

Let's say you're one of the top 10 High School Senior QBs. You've got NFL dreams.

You have a choice. You can go to any College you want and get a full scholarship.

Convince me how your NFL Dreams are helped by chosing Boise State. If Florida or Texas comes calling, you get to play on great teams, in great conferences. Or you can play on blue astroturf.

As for the "bias" of Herbstreet et al...pot, kettle, black. I'm pretty sure ESPN would love nothing more than a more even spread of influence across the NCAA, which would give them a wider range of games to cover. Herbstreet isn't paid by the big 12. They like the Big 12, because the Big 12 is by any standard the strongest conference in college football this year.

As for the running up the score bit, that's going to happen for as long as coaches and writers vote on who gets to be the best.