Ohio State or Michigan?

No. I am arguing that the SEC and Pac10 are by far the strongest conferences this year and that there is a very good chance that neither will put a team in the NC game. SC has the best chance but check their resume and it will be littered with teams taht were beaten by the SEC this year.

A system that says you can beat one quality opponent, play a lame conference schedule, then get the nod over teams that played 4 or 5 elite teams? That is what you are arguing... and would be what the pollsters affirmed if Michigan gets in.

I don't think that Mich has less than 2 losses if they'd played in the SEC or Pac 10 this year. OSU wouldn't be undefeated IMO.

Not me. It was a conference game. Which takes us to another inequity in the system.

I despise UF just to preface. However, if they end with one loss they would have played a much better schedule than either OSU or Mich. And after that... they will have had to beat an Arkansas team that has also run the gauntlet.

There is no way on earth that any computer or human pollster should rank Mich or ND over either UF or Arkansas... but I full well expect the human voters to tip it that way.

If SC wins... as much as I despise them as well... they're in and probably the champ again.

It isn't the rules that will get it done... it will be voter subjectivity.

 

So we should change the rules mid-year, and declare that either an SEC or Pac-10 team must play in the NC, because Scott J declares such? For every "expert" who says ___________(fill-in-the-blank) conference is "by far" the best in the country, I can find another expert who says differently. The arguments go on ad nauseum. You will never find complete objectivity in sports.

And FWIW, I hope you read my earlier post, because I agree that a playoff system would be better (but still not perfect - nothing is).

 

I think the failure of the BB system is that 64 teams get in. That makes it likely that an overachiever will make a run though the final four is usually made up of high seeds.

The winners of the BCS conferences won't have any pretenders. FB is different from basketball in that respect. This year four of the 6 conferences will have had at least 2 legit teams at the top (ACC and Big 12 don't).

This year the 8 teams under my suggestion might be UF, Ark/LSU, Texas, OSU, Mich, L'ville, SC, and the ACC winner. By Christmas, four of those teams would be playing each other for the chance to play the CG on January 8. The losing four teams would get bids to the other two bowls. All bowls would rotate their seeding. The rest of the bowl system would stay in place. You will have put a legit champ game together by adding only one game for 6 teams and 2 games for 2 teams.

The thing that is manifestly unfair is great teams that play in great conferences will almost always lose a game and their shot at the NC while very good teams in weak conferences or down year conferences will play for the NC.

 

Nope. They should get respect from the voters because they are obviously the best two conferences. The OSU-Mich game doesn't provide perspective. The only measuring stick we really have for either team is the other team. The Big10 is weak this year and I'd like to see any objective proof that says any different.

The SEC and Pac10 champs will have beaten more elite teams. That is a simple fact.

I am not a Big 10 fan but IMO they are usually the strongest conference top to bottom. They aren't this year. They are third at best... and I'm not sure the top 3 teams in the BE wouldn't beat the bottom 9 teams in the Big 10... translation: The BE may be better than the Big 10 this year.

No. You just compare the talent, level of play, and quality wins.

Tennessee will probably be the 5th or 6th SEC team this year. Oregon will be the 4th or 5th team in the Pac10... either would easily have no more than one loss in any of the other 4 BCS conferences. LSU will be the 3rd or 4th SEC team and they could have easily won any of those conferences.

Anyone who looks objectively at the general quality of teams and play this year would acknowledge that the Big 10 is down, the Big12 is its normal 2-3 team self, the BE is up, and the ACC is down bad.

Both the SEC and Pac10 are fielding more great teams this year.

 

Scott, your beef seems to be with the human polls. That's fine. But look at the computer rankings here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

5 of the 6 computers have Mich. at no. 2. So do the computer formulas have no respect for the SEC, too?

 

For much of the season the computers had Cal ranked #2... as much as 10 places ahead of the Vols who absolutely dominated them. They were ranked ahead of several undefeated teams at that point.

I don't really know how you write a program that says a Mich team that has beaten precisely ONE quality team this year is #2. Compare to UF or SC... well there is no comparison. Both have beaten at least 4 opponents that are as good or better than Michigan's one good win.

 

Actually if I am not mistaken Sagarin would give a better rating to a team that beat two teams with very good records plus a bunch of losers over a team that had beaten a whole schedule of 3 or 4 loss teams.

The SEC will probably have 9 bowl eligible teams this year out of 12. Nine teams that won at least 6 games... oh yeah, one of the teams that won't qualify, Vandy, gave Mich a decent game this year. I don't think there is any denying that the SEC provides a more difficult conference schedule for UF and Arkansas. Yet most of those teams won't rank as high as a one loss Wisconsin or ND in Sagarin.... so they won't help UF/Ark any more than a victory over Ball State helped Mich.

 

Well, apparently, 5 out of 6 computers disagree with you.

 

Maybe one reason that the Big 10 does not have more bowl eligible teams this year is that they had 1 team go 8-0 and 2 teams go 7-1, thus creating top-heavy standings in the conference. It's hard to have a bunch of 6-5 teams when you have three great teams going 8-0, 7-1 and 7-1. A bunch of 6-5 teams in a conference is not that impressive. For one, what was their non-conference schedule like? That's where the computer formulas come in - they factor in strength of schedule, etc. It's not like I'm picking one computer formula over another; 5 out 6 say that UM is no. 2, and the 6th one says they are no. 3!

 

That's kind of what I said the problem with the computer rankings was. Beating a couple of 1 loss teams then 10 losing teams is actually better than beating 12 teams with 3 losses... though the latter team would have played 10 more teams with a real shot at beating them.

BTW, that is no more difficult than than having two 1 loss teams and 2 two loss teams in the SEC then having 5 more teams that are bowl eligible.

There won't be any 6-5 teams this year. They all play 12.

FTR, the other qualifiers in the SEC are UT 3 or 4 loss, UK 4-5 loss, UGA 4-5 loss, So Car 4-5 loss, and Bama 5-6 loss. Last time I checked, it didn't look like the Big10 would be able to fill all of its allotted slots with bowl eligible teams.

If that's true then one really has to start wondering.

OK... whatever helps you sleep. Just be honest enough to ask yourself the question of who played tougher schedules.

Again, I would say that over time the Big10 is the toughest top to bottom conference. This year is a down year.

 

If OSU wins handily (say by 10+ points) in the NC (and it's not against UM), will you change your mind? Or will the biased computers and human polls have rigged that, too?

 

My NAME says I'm a Tenn fan

Highly unlikely. Auburn or LSU would probably go ahead of UK since both of them are ranked and travel better than UK. I wouldn't be surprised to see UK get a bid before the first snap at Neyland Saturday.

Well, the Chick-fil-A bowl has to take an SEC and ACC team because of tie-ins. They won't get a "team from outside the region" then.

The Chick-Fil-A bowl is a high paying bowl game. LSU wouldn't be too far down the food chain for that game. It's not like we're talking about the Mobile Bowl or the Emerald Bowl. UT's med school being in Memphis means nothing to the Liberty Bowl. Memphis is 400+ miles from Knoxville. If UT is still around by the time the Liberty gets to pick, they might take them, but only because UT would be a better candidate than the remainder of the field. Liberty still likes Bama from what I've read due to the proximity. Nashville would love to have UT, but how many hotel rooms are going to be snatched up by UT fans? Not many. These concerns play in. I want to see UK in a bowl game. However, to me it's 50-50 on them getting in or getting left out because of who they'd have to climb over. They could get in a bowl where another conference doesn't have enough qualifiers, but UK's lack of support is troubling according to published reports.

 

There should be no rematch of OSU and the school from up north.
There should be a playoff, with at least 8 teams and preferably 12 (I know it's unbalanced). While 9-12 has some good teams, no one ranked 13 or lower is going to win the national title. Let them cry all they want.
There should be a public disclosure of the source code for the BCS computers. We have no idea what basis gives the computers for keeping that school up north at #2 (except the contribution of the human polls).
Ohio State is far and away the #1 ranked team in America. They'd be as good in the SEC as they are in the Big Ten, though the former is a better conference than the latter overall. I'd like to see OSU defense against Fla's spread or Ark's running attack. I think either of those two teams would be a better matchup than USC or ND versus the Bucks. However, the pundits are salivating at having either USC, ND, or the school from up north play the Bucks.

 

No, I think OSU should play a team that they have not yet beaten.

Incorrect. Everyone had a chance to go undefeated. Only one team did it. Everyone had a chance to earn their way to the top. And only one team did it. (And I don't even like OSU particularly, so don't accuse me of being a homer.)

I think the point that I made is that it was essentially a play off game. You have two teams playing, knowing that the winner goes to the NC game and the loser doesn't. How is that not essentially a playoff game?

Not necessarily. But even if home field was decided on this year's play, who would have had it? OSU. They were the top rated team. So even under your scenario, they would have had home field advantage.

In the end, it won't matter. Either Florida or USC will probably win out and jump Michigan. If Michigan does end up #2, I would predict they will probably get beat again, by more than they got beat last time. I think OSU showed themselves to be the better team by a clear margin. And some last minute scoring made it look closer than it actually was.

 

So if Texas had remained with one loss and ranked no. 2, I assume they wouldn't deserve to play OSU either, since OSU beat them this season. Makes no sense. I don't disagree that OSU is the better team, but the current system is designed to try to put the two best teams in the NC. OSU may be 10 points better than every team out there, but you still have to match them with the [supposedly] second best team. The current system in place, though flawed, is the BCS rankings. If it ends up that UM is no. 2 then you can't all of a sudden change the rules to fix it to your liking (like crybaby Urban Meyer is doing). If you want to fight for a different system next year, fine - I'm all for a playoff system that includes more teams.

BTW, the people who are saying that if UM beats OSU in the NC it would prove nothing, since they would be 1-1 against each other, have it all wrong. If Duke beats NC twice during the season (or even 3 times, if they face in the ACC tourney), but NC happens to beat Duke in the NC, no one cries and says it proves nothing. No, it means NC are the champs. If the Colts face the Cowboys in the Super Bowl and the Colts win, it would be pretty silly for Cowboy fans to say it proves nothing because the Cowboys won in the regular season. No, the Colts would be Super Bowl champs, end of story. Same thing if UM would happen to beat OSU in the NC.

 

Yes and no.

Rightly or wrongly, another effect of having played a tough conference season is that you lose more players to injury.

But to answer your question directly, it depends on who the opponent is. If it is SC then I'll be impressed. If ND... no. I don't think they are a very good football team at all.

If they beat UF or Arkansas by 10-plus then I'll be impressed.

If they beat L'ville by 10 plus... no. They haven't played anyone either.

OSU has a very good team as does Mich. But the suggestion that they are the best two teams based primarily on their performance against each other and two fairly weak schedules is blind subjectivity. Both teams would be competitive in the SEC or Pac10 for the title... but no other Big 10 team would this year. The SEC has 5 teams that were legit contenders for the championship if you don't include UGA who seemed to only find themselves recently. The Pac10 had about 4 teams that were legit contenders.

The Big10 this year looks slow and not even characteristically physical outside of UM and OSU.

Again, I despise UF. Nonetheless, they are getting knocked for not scoring more points against SEC defenses. However SEC defense on an every year basis is a notch up from every other conference.

 

No. They wouldn't deserve to play them again because the Big 12 is even weaker than the Big 10 this year. You can't even correctly call OU a quality win. They are not a national power this year. The best line on the Texas resume is that they didn't get completely blown out by OSU... that isn't much to hang your cowboy hat on.

Which is precisely why a team they've beaten does not deserve another shot. It would unavoidably disclude someone who has not been proven inferior to the #1 team.

If the current system puts UM in then it is not only flawed it is broken. This is already a system that put OU in a few years ago after losing their conf championship badly. Putting UM in would be every bit as much an injustice to someone and would demand a "fix".

The only fix this year would be if the pollsters wake up to reality when the dust settles.

If the BCS is kept then it should give a bonus to teams that play a conf championship not only because of the difficulty but to push the other conferences toward it.

Also, the computer rankings should give credit for quality losses as well as quality wins. For instance, USC lost to a mediocre Ore St team. Shouldn't that hurt them more than Arkansas' loss to USC, UF's loss to Auburn, ND's loss to Mich, or even Mich's loss to OSU?

I know that would make it even more likely the UM would get in this year but it seems only fair.

Maybe there should just be a flat rule that two teams that have played each other or are from the same conference cannot play the CG.

All those systems have a playoff that allows one team that has been beaten earlier to "prove" they have improved to become the better team.

If UM got in, they won't have proven that they've improved at all. They won't even have played another opponent.

 

A slight correction, is called for here, I think. Only one Division IA team has gone undefeated for its "regular season", "The Ohio State University". (BTW, "The" is not some ego trip, for the Buckeyes, but is the official name of the institution.) This may or may not be the case after its bowl game. We shall see.
But there is yet another Division IA school that has gone undefeated, so far, and may well finish its "regular season", having gone undefeated, as well. That is Boise State University. The Broncos, too, may or may not be undefeated after its bowl game. Again, we shall see.
So far, at least. Boise State has also done everything that has been asked, as well. That makes exactly 2 out of 119 Division IA schools that have done so, although one of the two still has one game remaining.
Do I think Boise State is as 'good' as Ohio State? No, but just let's not mix apples and oranges, or criteria, when we compare 'results'.

Oh, yeah! Go Big Blue! Go Kentucky Wildcats! :thumbsup:
Go Big Red! Go Louisville Cardinals! :thumbsup:

Go SEC! , after that (even though I nearly choke to pull for Tennessee, due to some bad recent memories in football, and Florida, due to some bad recent memories in basketball)!

Just so everyone will know I am a completely unbiased fan! :laugh:

Ed

 

Tennessee has given you some bad recent memories in basketball, too. Heck, we're even ranked higher than y'all in the coaches poll