Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

TideEngineer08 · Mar 6, 2012

engl6914 said:
I didn't say I supported a playoff, and I don't. I said I think the movement to change the BCS is in great part due to what happened with LSU and us this year. It's the playoff crowd wanting to change the BCS to make it more of a playoff. The fact we weren't "eliminated" from the BCS title game by our loss in BDS gets in the craw of these people. To some extent they have a point--LSU got no points for beating us at BDS, but....

you wanna know what I think? I like the old way of playing the bowls at New Years and then let the polls vote--makes the regular season count for almost everything. And remember, also, these are students--some of the players on the team when I was an undergrad were in my medical school class. A playoff really strings things out for them.

Click to expand...

Except that LSU did get points for beating us in BDS. They got locked into the NC game, so much so that the SEC title game was rendered meaningless. It was widely believed that LSU could have lost to Georgia and still made the NC game. We had to sweat it out waiting to see if Oklahoma State would pass us, not LSU.

And so it is in any system. You'll have about 15 teams sitting on pins and needles before the basketball tournament is announced, and only about 5-7 will get chosen for those last spots. People go on and on about football being a popularity contest decided by polls. Well what is ncaa basketball, if not a popularity contest decided by a committee??? It's the same nonsense. All of it is. I've never heard such illogical self-service in all of my life until I've heard these sports writers and some fans drone on about a college football playoff. (I'm not talking about you, engl6914).

mittman · Mar 6, 2012

GrayTide said:
...
am I the only one who had rather watch the SyFy channel than the Music City Bowl, Motor City Bowl, Armed Forces Bowl, California Bowl, Insight.Com Bowl or Liberty Bowl?
...

No ire here. I like SyFy as much as the next guy, but even a good episode of Lost Girl would not pull me away from a ball game :wink:

CrimsonPride · Mar 6, 2012

engl6914 said:
I think the reason there's talk of change in the BCS is not so much we didn't win our division and the SEC title, but that we lost to LSU in the regular season and at home. The general movement is toward a playoff; in a playoff when you lose to another team in the playoff you're out. That's not what happened this year. From the LSU standpoint it's as if the game in BDS never happened.

I'm sorry buy I have to disagree with you here. We did not lose to LSU in a playoff. A playoff occurs after the regular season. You cannot possibly equate losing a game during the regular season with losing a playoff game. There is no rational thought that says that Alabama should have been out of consideration for the BCS championship based on the 11/5 loss to LSU. If so, then Okie State, Stanford, and any other team with a loss during the regular season would have been out. Who would LSU have played in the championship game under these rules?

To say it is as if the game in BDS never happened from an LSU standpoint is weak. It is this very game that basically solidified LSU’s entry into the BCS championship game barring a major meltdown. It was widely held that even if LSU lost to UGA in the SECCG, they would still go to the BCSCG in part based on the fact that they had won the game during the regular season against the #2 team in the country. Playing the #1 team in the country the way that we did and dominating our other opponents, is what kept Alabama at #2 at the end of the regular season. It was pretty obvious to anyone who watched the 11/5 game that Alabama was the only team in the country that was on par with LSU this year. This really became evident after the entire regular season was complete. Alabama lost in overtime 9-6 to the #1 team in the country. Okie St. lost to a pitiful Iowa St team in double overtime. Stanford lost to #7 Oregon, the heir apparent to a rematch with LSU until they loss again on 11/19. So, the game in BDS was very relevant and most likely carried a lot of weight in determining the #2 team of the regular season.

I don't believe the fact that a team lost to a team during the regular season and then got to play that same team again in the BCS championship game is what has the Big 10-12 and others all worked up. In fact, these same folks were all in support of rematches, if Alabama had beat LSU on 11/5 and the both won the rest of their games or if Oregon only had the one loss to LSU at the end of the regular season. If Oregon had only one loss and earned entry into the BCSCG, would people say that it is as if the 9/3 game against LSU never happened? I don’t think so. Why is a rematch that would give other teams a chance to play for the championship acceptable and not one that gave Alabama the opportunity? The answer has to be in some part that it is indeed Alabama.

jmwesler · Mar 6, 2012

Any argument for or against a playoff using this year as an example is likely a flawed argument. The BCS did what it has always said it will do, place number 1 vs 2. The way it fell down this year was odd, and due more in part to everyone losing games they shouldn't have than any perceived bias.

Personally, this thread has helped me to believe I am not a fringe of society. For years I have argued the BCS is the best system available currently, and scoffed at the idea of Boise trying to sue the BCS ( i mean really, where would boise be without the bcs?). I now see that the media is not accurate when it claims "a playoff is what everyone wants".

KrAzY3 · Mar 6, 2012

GrayTide said:
Great post KrAzY, you do spend a lot of time thinking this through and I for one appreciate it. I have been a college football fan for more years than I care to mention and would never miss the opportunity to watch any bowl game, provided my father wanted to watch the same game (1 TV family in those days). It was a college football feast.

Over the years as more and more bowl games were added some of the anticipation and luster wore off until now with 35 bowl games it has become ridiculous. I understand the reward for the players and staff, extra practice time and trips to places most would not go if not for a bowl game, but IMO the whole idea of bowl participation has been watered down. Some of this has to be laid at the feet of the BCS. I mean, what were the Nielsen ratings for the Orange Bowl, who in the hell wanted to watch WVU and Clemson outside of their fans. I know this will raise the ire of "true college football fans", but am I the only one who had rather watch the SyFy channel than the Music City Bowl, Motor City Bowl, Armed Forces Bowl, California Bowl, Insight.Com Bowl or Liberty Bowl?

I know it is all about the money and exposure, etc and everyone can watch what they want but, IMO I still believe the number of crappy bowls with crappy teams (winning 6 games) has over exposed college football. Thanks for reading, off rant.

Thank you

I agree about crappy bowls and teams. I've seen some here argue for the idea that it's fine to let anyone who qualifies play in a bowl game, but considering 6-6 now qualifies, and we have conferences that rival FCS conferences (Sun Belt), it becomes an absurdity. Let's take Western Kentucky for example. They lost every single OOC game (including to Indiana St) and yet they were four points away from playing a bowl game in Mobile. They shouldn't have been a mile within a bowl game, much less four points.

I've said it before, but one way or another the MAC, Wac and Sun Belt should be eliminated. This would instantly eliminate several crappy bowl games and would go a very long way towards clearing up the post season picture.

Unfortunately, it's about as realistic as the other step that would help things, which would be to completely break off the BCS championship game from the other bowls. You'd just have to secure an agreement that 1 vs 2 was free to play in the game (I think you'd be best off making the deal with the conferences directly) and otherwise the bowls would be free to function as they want. I've alluded to ESPN's harmful behavior towards bowls, but ultimately the bowls falling under the BCS have done both the BCS a disservice by creating unnecessary controversy, and it has harmed the independence of the bowl games. The forced inclusion of some teams and the forced exclusion of others has marred the BCS (even though it had no bearing on the championship).

If you let the bowl games become independent once again, I think they would migrate back towards the first and you'd see more quality matchups on a greater variety of television stations. The two steps combined would, in my opinion also bring back extra luster to the 1 vs 2 matchup and the bowl season as a whole. It won't happen though, and that's another reason I'm convinced things are headed in the wrong direction...

engl6914 · Mar 6, 2012

CrimsonPride said:
I'm sorry buy I have to disagree with you here. We did not lose to LSU in a playoff. A playoff occurs after the regular season. You cannot possibly equate losing a game during the regular season with losing a playoff game. There is no rational thought that says that Alabama should have been out of consideration for the BCS championship based on the 11/5 loss to LSU. If so, then Okie State, Stanford, and any other team with a loss during the regular season would have been out. Who would LSU have played in the championship game under these rules?

To say it is as if the game in BDS never happened from an LSU standpoint is weak. It is this very game that basically solidified LSU’s entry into the BCS championship game barring a major meltdown.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the fact that a team lost to a team during the regular season and then got to play that same team again in the BCS championship game is what has the Big 10-12 and others all worked up. In fact, these same folks were all in support of rematches, if Alabama had beat LSU on 11/5 and the both won the rest of their games or if Oregon only had the one loss to LSU at the end of the regular season. If Oregon had only one loss and earned entry into the BCSCG, would people say that it is as if the 9/3 game against LSU never happened? I don’t think so. Why is a rematch that would give other teams a chance to play for the championship acceptable and not one that gave Alabama the opportunity? The answer has to be in some part that it is indeed Alabama.

I didn't really say it was a playoff per se, but in the eyes of a "playoff" supporter it is the equivalent since there is no formal playoff system; the regular season serves in lieu of a playoff. Again, I don't believe in a formal playoff, but to someone who does then when we lose to LSU, especially at home, some other team with one loss should go to the BCS title game. It wouldn't matter to that person if many people felt we are the only team able to play LSU straight up--the fact is to them Alabama lost to LSU, and therefore, say, Oklahoma State should have a chance at LSU. The same would be true to that person if Oregon had won all their games except the LSU game--Oregon has had their chance, and someone else ought to get a chance. In that person's mind Alabama is not necessarily the best team; the result to them is a two game series in which Alabama won once.
Again, I'm representing the mind of a playoff supporter, and there are many of them. To them this BCS was not satisfactory and, thus, the call for change. The BCS this year did put the two best teams against each other--its stated purpose--but I think many want to tweak BCS to more resemble a playoff and avoid what happened this year.
As I've said before, I myself don't particularly care for the BCS and am very much against a playoff. The old way with New Years bowls and then polls determining a title is a simpler way that worked well for a long time. Even with BCS and playoffs there are still arguments on who should play and therefore aren't an improvement.

CrimsonProf · Mar 6, 2012

KrAzY3 said:
So the logical reaction is to make the regular season even more meaningless? That's like saying, I'm mad that I spilled my glass of milk so I'm going to pour out the whole gallon. It's an irrational response.

The BCS championship game is not what made the first LSU/Alabama game mean less. Every other team losing is what did that.

Your reference to a playoff as a solution because it is lose and your out, is tinged with the illogical assumption that only playoff results should matter. The fact is, any fair playoff and Alabama is in. They made it into a 1 v 2, they belonged in a +1, or any other iteration of a playoff. How on earth does a playoff someone "fix" this imagined problem? Why would letting two other one loss teams (one of which didn't win their conference either) somehow magically right the wrongs? Besides, if the criteria should be lose and your season is over, well ok then not only Alabama, but every other team besides LSU should be out. You can't tell me that only Alabama's loss should have mattered, that's insane.

The problem here is a simple one. The criteria for winning a division or a conference does not necessarily align itself with the criteria to be a champion. While that might not make sense to some of you, look over the NCAA basketball automatic entrants. Look at the so called "conference champs" and consider how arbitrary the process is. Then, look at divisions, look at how Oregon won a conference championship with two losses, over a one loss team. The simple fact is that winning your division, or conference does not automatically make you more championship worthy than a team that did not. That's reality.

A playoff, would mean more rematches, more undoing of regular season results, not less. It's just absurd that I see a playoff put forth as a way to prevent something it would cause more of. I keep seeing it though, and I'm trying to figure out how one's mind allows this sort of illogical leap.

Your bold words are most pertinent. Should be shouted from the rooftops. Reading countless respected sports writers claim the "meaninglessness" of that game made me chew nails all winter.

CrimsonPride · Mar 6, 2012

engl6914 said:
I didn't really say it was a playoff per se, but in the eyes of a "playoff" supporter it is the equivalent since there is no formal playoff system; the regular season serves in lieu of a playoff. Again, I don't believe in a formal playoff, but to someone who does then when we lose to LSU, especially at home, some other team with one loss should go to the BCS title game. It wouldn't matter to that person if many people felt we are the only team able to play LSU straight up--the fact is to them Alabama lost to LSU, and therefore, say, Oklahoma State should have a chance at LSU. The same would be true to that person if Oregon had won all their games except the LSU game--Oregon has had their chance, and someone else ought to get a chance. In that person's mind Alabama is not necessarily the best team; the result to them is a two game series in which Alabama won once.
Again, I'm representing the mind of a playoff supporter, and there are many of them. To them this BCS was not satisfactory and, thus, the call for change. The BCS this year did put the two best teams against each other--its stated purpose--but I think many want to tweak BCS to more resemble a playoff and avoid what happened this year.
As I've said before, I myself don't particularly care for the BCS and am very much against a playoff. The old way with New Years bowls and then polls determining a title is a simpler way that worked well for a long time. Even with BCS and playoffs there are still arguments on who should play and therefore aren't an improvement.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I think we are on the same page.

GrayTide · Mar 6, 2012

Had Alabama beaten LSU 10-7 who is National Champions, or does it require the best out of 3? :conf2:

jmwesler · Mar 6, 2012

Speaking of What ifs, a scenario that doesn't seem to have gotten much discussion is what if alabama had won the first game. LSU would have gotten in over okie state easy. So from there are there less complaints because okie state had no argument to be #2, or is it still the argument saying the game was meaningless

TAKEPRIDE22 · Mar 7, 2012

CajunCrimson said:
In all actuality, a plus one just increases the odds the SEC wins the BCS....

Now all we have to do is finish in the Top 4.....

This is what I was thinking. You will have someone from the SEC in the top 4 whether they will the conference or not, and this was be a cause for them to change again. The SEC is not going anywhere anytime soon...they might as well get use to it.

jmwesler · Mar 7, 2012

Once the trend is noticed that the sec will always have multiple people in the top 4 they will change it to only allow conference champs. Another thing to think about: People are upset about how coaches vote to try and get themselves in. A playoff only makes it easier to rig the system. The fifth team can vote itself first and only has to jump to 4th, not second

KrAzY3 · Mar 7, 2012

jmwesler said:
People are upset about how coaches vote to try and get themselves in. A playoff only makes it easier to rig the system. The fifth team can vote itself first and only has to jump to 4th, not second

While I don't think this is the paramount issue, one of my main issues with the idea of a +1 is the fourth team. I have a very hard time just finding a fourth team that had any sort of a case for playing for the NC and certainly lacked the credentials for a NC.

Keep in mind I'm going by pre-bowl BCS rankings.
1998 - #4 Ohio State finished 11-1 (Tennessee went 13-0)
1999 - #4 Alabama finished 10-3 (Florida St. went 12-0)
2000 - #4 Washington finished 11-1 (Oklahoma went 13-0)
2001 - #4 Oregon finished 11-1 (Miami went 12-0)
2002 - #4 USC finished 11-2 (Ohio St. went 14-0)
2003 - #4 Michigan finished 10-3 (LSU went 13-1)
2004 - #4 Texas finished 11-1 (USC went 13-0)
2005 - #4 Ohio St. finished 10-2 (Texas went 13-0)
2006 - #4 LSU finished 11-2 (Florida went 13-1)
2007 - #4 Oklahoma finished 11-3 (LSU went 12-2)
2008 - #4 Alabama finished 12-2 (Florida went 13-1)
2009 - #4 TCU finished 12-1 (Alabama went 14-0)
2010 - #4 Stanford finished 12-1 (Auburn went 14-0)
2011 - #4 Stanford finished 11-2 (Alabama went 12-1)

There you have it, every single year of the BCS. The thing is, I've already alluded to the two cases in which #3 had an argument. #4 never had an argument! Now, just for comparison purposes I selected the champion, but I think everyone can get the point. #4, in the history of the BCS, has never had a persuasive argument for being #1. It's open and shut, it's as simple as that. On several occasions #4 playing for the NC would have been a travesty. And yes, I include one Alabama team in that list. There's no way that 1999 Alabama deserved to have a shot at a championship.

So, here's where I am stuck. I can't find a single #4 team in the history of the BCS that could make the argument they deserved to be #1. Not one... yet, we are supposed to make a system that gives them an annual shot at #1. What would that say to the regular season results? So, we have the pro... we have USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004. And we have the con, which is pretty much every other #3 and #4 team in the BCS standings.

People complained that LSU's win over Alabama didn't mean anything. Oh, I see... so to fix that they should have had to play another one loss team that didn't win their conference? Really? Or, we have complaints that teams that didn't win their conference would be in, oh ok... so let's do that more often then! Rematches? Yup, got those to! So every single thing people complained about this year, would be much more common in a +1. Let's not even get into the travesty that a 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 plus one would be, let's not even dig into how much that would scar the postseason if you put the conference champ qualifier on things.

Then, as if that's not enough let's consider things further. I saw it suggested here, that for example Utah in 2008 would have been placed ahead of Alabama if there had been a plus one. Oh really, so the suggestion is that the polls would have intentionally rigged things so that the team they felt was inferior would jump another team so they could be in a plus one? I hope that's not true, but it's possible. We've seen the polls try to move things around a bit in the past, the problem is they have limited space in which to work. If they knew the importance of #4, they could use the position strategically and unfortunately I do think you'd see it used (not just by coaches, by writers primarily) to try and position the team they wanted into a plus one. The idea that we could, as though we tolerate the notion, suggest that the polls would unethically promote a team for the sake of gaining entry into a plus one is horrid.

This, slippery slope aside, is what I can not stomach about a plus one. I'd rather see us go back to the old bowl system than implement a conference champs only +1. I said before the only plus one I could stomach was a 2 (at home) vs 3 with 1 having a bye. But, ultimately a plus one is a very bad idea because of #4. It pushed LSU into a Stanford game, which if the Alabama game was an insult, that one would have been a slap in the face. It would put undeserving team after undeserving team into it, and why? So the media could stop bashing the process? In the hope that we'd sate their need for inclusion? Unfortunately, we'll see a +1 long before we see a #4 that actually deserves to be in it.

crimsonbleeder · Mar 7, 2012

Krazy, I hope you can aggregate all your thoughts from here (and more) into a blog page all in one place so we can refer people to it for easier reading. You have absolutely hit every worry, and every issue I have as well, and I think most thinking people are worried about all those things, if they're not knee jerk casual fans blinded by the "March Madness" of potential football playoffs...

jmwesler · Mar 7, 2012

Krazy that was great work, and I love where your heads at. The only problem is the rest of the world doesn't understand that theory. I reiterated after the super bowl as many times as possible that we cannot simply declare a 9-7 team the world champions. Some fans agreed, while most nfl fans simply say they were the best team since they won the playoff. I have always said the best team never wins a playoff, but causal fans do not understand that. That is the problem with your analysis. Its made for people who actually care about college football, while media types want to expand it to people who dont care about college football. The media will continue to blast the idea of a playoff at us, and it has been working. There are people out there who couldnt tell you what conference Alabama is in but they know we didnt deserve this year because there wasnt a playoff

GrayTide · Mar 8, 2012

IMO, the +1 scenario has some merit provided it only allows the top 4 teams in without any loopholes, but you can bet the farm the media, especially ESPN, is not going to let it rest with a final four for long. The media is desperately trying to get CFB into at least an 8 possibly 16 team playoff. It is all about the money lining their pockets. At least for now the media has duped the Big 10, Big 12 and PAC 12 into buying into the +1. This is only the beginning.

crimsonbleeder · Mar 8, 2012

jmwesler said:
Krazy that was great work, and I love where your heads at. The only problem is the rest of the world doesn't understand that theory. I reiterated after the super bowl as many times as possible that we cannot simply declare a 9-7 team the world champions. Some fans agreed, while most nfl fans simply say they were the best team since they won the playoff. I have always said the best team never wins a playoff, but causal fans do not understand that. That is the problem with your analysis. Its made for people who actually care about college football, while media types want to expand it to people who dont care about college football. The media will continue to blast the idea of a playoff at us, and it has been working. There are people out there who couldnt tell you what conference Alabama is in but they know we didnt deserve this year because there wasnt a playoff

Agreed. There is NO WAY a single elimination type of tourney can every properly decide a "real" Champion. There will be accidental wins by lesser teams, and accidental losses by championship caliber teams. While we all love "March Madness" and NFL playoffs, that single elimination style does not do the sport justice. A better idea (although probably impractical) would be to have DOUBLE elimination tourneys; after all, baseball and hockey and the NBA have "best of" series, which more than make up for the chances that an inferior team might accidentally win and eliminate the better team at some point.

But, that's a whole separate argument. Here, we simply do NOT want to start the ball rolling towards a playoff in college football, UNLESS there are NO "special rules" that would prevent a conference from having EVERY team in it, if they were the 1,2,3, and 4 teams in the country. However, as Krazy has said, the powers that be will not have a "simple" solution---they will put out the carrot, the public will bite it, and then we're stuck---THERE WILL BE NO GOING BACK once they screw this up, and we are going to get very screwed by the OTHER conferences at some point, guaranteed.

mittman · Mar 8, 2012

Krazy,

I really appreciate the well thought out posts, and way you make your argument is compelling.

Still, I believe IF (I know it is a big if) a +1 is as far as they go it is the best option given today's environment, and the almost certainty that they are going to do something.

I do agree that there are few if any examples of a 4 seed that really deserves to be there. But, the 4 seed is going to be there unless you only have 3 teams with the #1 getting a bye. A novel idea that I doubt will ever get any traction.

The current system does work to a great extent, but there are too many who believe that it does not, that it is unfair, and that there still is no true champion only a mythical one. I am not one of those, but I do like the idea of a +1 purely to get some of what we used to have in the old bowl system back. The games would really mean something. Yes the old bowls were exhibitions, but having few teams that were awarded a bowl berth gave it extra meaning. Only 4 teams would bring that back in a way that the BCS bowls tried to but really has not.

It may be a slippery slope we are approaching, but I don't see a way around it. I am hoping that they stop at a +1 and give it a try without going to an 8 or even 16 team playoff. I for one do not believe it is guaranteed that they will go beyond the 4 teams.

BamaSully · Mar 8, 2012

Well i hate i dont have time to read the rest, but i had to stop after page 2 (DANG WORK!!!)

KRAZY3....nail, meet head!!!

thank you sir!!!

We already have the best championship system in all of the american sports that i am familiar with, at any level. It amazes me that people over the age of 12 dont see that. Instead we are on a mission to MESS IT UP.

-Sully

selmaborntidefan · Mar 17, 2012

KrAzY3 said:
While I don't think this is the paramount issue, one of my main issues with the idea of a +1 is the fourth team. I have a very hard time just finding a fourth team that had any sort of a case for playing for the NC and certainly lacked the credentials for a NC.

Makes as much sense than #5 jumping all the way to #1 when the teams ahead of it won:
1977 Notre Dame
1983 Miami

That's the old system - so in one system #5 DOES quality but #4 does NOT?

KrAzY3 said:
Keep in mind I'm going by pre-bowl BCS rankings.
1998 - #4 Ohio State finished 11-1 (Tennessee went 13-0)
1999 - #4 Alabama finished 10-3 (Florida St. went 12-0)
2000 - #4 Washington finished 11-1 (Oklahoma went 13-0)
2001 - #4 Oregon finished 11-1 (Miami went 12-0)
2002 - #4 USC finished 11-2 (Ohio St. went 14-0)
2003 - #4 Michigan finished 10-3 (LSU went 13-1)
2004 - #4 Texas finished 11-1 (USC went 13-0)
2005 - #4 Ohio St. finished 10-2 (Texas went 13-0)
2006 - #4 LSU finished 11-2 (Florida went 13-1)
2007 - #4 Oklahoma finished 11-3 (LSU went 12-2)
2008 - #4 Alabama finished 12-2 (Florida went 13-1)
2009 - #4 TCU finished 12-1 (Alabama went 14-0)
2010 - #4 Stanford finished 12-1 (Auburn went 14-0)
2011 - #4 Stanford finished 11-2 (Alabama went 12-1)

But your argument is flawed by the simple fact that if we were ranking for a PLUS ONE then MANY of the rankings
would have been different. (Not your fault - you can only go off the data - but I'm saying let's not even
pretend the rankings would have been the same if 4 gets in).

Your argument is also flawed by the fact you bring up "hey, #4 lost here" when you know full well that an
unbeaten #4 in a Plus One would have played a different foe.

KrAzY3 said:
There you have it, every single year of the BCS. The thing is, I've already alluded to the two cases in which #3 had an argument. #4 never had an argument!

There were FIVE unbeatens on December 5, 2009. If the refs don't put that extra second on the clock
for Texas, there were four. Alabama was admittedly a given. But seriously - can you say ANY of the
three unbeatens (Cincinnati, Boise State, TCU) should have been there or should NOT have been there?

Why Cincinnati over TCU? Or Boise?

Keep in mind that's just one year.

KrAzY3 said:
Now, just for comparison purposes I selected the champion, but I think everyone can get the point. #4, in the history of the BCS, has never had a persuasive argument for being #1. I

Only because your method was flawed - they had a case for PLAYING for number one.

Remember - this issue is NOT "it turned out OK," the issue is HOW you get there.

KrAzY3 said:
It's open and shut, it's as simple as that.

It most certainly is - you used a flawed argument. Next?

The fact of the matter is this: you CANNOT say
a) Florida State was any more deserving than Ohio State in 1998
b) Florida State was any more deserving than Washington in 2000
c) Nebraska was more deserving than Oregon in 2001.
d) You know full well that Utah would have been ranked #4 in a Plus One, so your citation
of Texas in 2004 is meaningless
e) OU was any less deserving than LSU in 2007 (both had two losses)
f) Utah would have been #4 in 2008, so this point is also incorrect
g) OK State was more deserving to even be number three than Stanford

(I realize on g you're going to try to say, "But they beat them head-to-head." Problem is you didn't
know that at the time, so you can't use that argument).

KrAzY3 said:
On several occasions #4 playing for the NC would have been a travesty. And yes, I include one Alabama team in that list. There's no way that 1999 Alabama deserved to have a shot at a championship.

And yet if Stallworth doesn't hit Cangelosi in the end zone, a one-loss Bama team plays FSU for the title.

KrAzY3 said:
So, here's where I am stuck. I can't find a single #4 team in the history of the BCS that could make the argument they deserved to be #1.

Because you used "facts" that would not be true under that scenario, and you counted in records
of losses (TCU 2009) the team would not have had at the end of the regular season.

I gave you SEVEN EXAMPLES where you cannot argue that #2 was necessarily a better opponent than #4 was.

KrAzY3 said:
Not one... yet, we are supposed to make a system that gives them an annual shot at #1.

No, it's about getting the SECOND TEAM right. There's usually one real good team nobody disputes should be there.

KrAzY3 said:
What would that say to the regular season results? .

Well, you'd pretty much have to have 0, 1, or - in an unusual case like 2007 - certainly no MORE than
two losses. Seems to me that would make the regular season quite meaningful.

KrAzY3 said:
So, we have the pro... we have USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004.

Along with other examples you mis-stated.

KrAzY3 said:
And we have the con, which is pretty much every other #3 and #4 team in the BCS standings.

No, the con is the "facts" you're using would not be true under a PLUS ONE, and you know this.

In all seriousness, it is posts with "facts" like these that make me hate the BCS even more. Is
there a school where they teach this kind of "fact finding" mission that isn't?

KrAzY3 said:
People complained that LSU's win over Alabama didn't mean anything.

Well, it did.

The team that won that game:
a) had an extra game against a ranked foe
b) ran the risk of injury in that extra game
c) had seven fewer days to prepare for the game than the other one who now had
an extra game to scout.

KrAzY3 said:
Oh, I see... so to fix that they should have had to play another one loss team that didn't win their conference?

Bad argument. Nobody but Roy Kramer and some "we hate the SEC" folks in other conferences is talking like this.

KrAzY3 said:
Really? Or, we have complaints that teams that didn't win their conference would be in, oh ok... so let's do that more often then! Rematches? Yup, got those to! So every single thing people complained about this year, would be much more common in a +1.

This is a valid point. But I never complained about a rematch, either.

In point of fact it was BCS PROPONENTS who kept trying to tell us about how EVERY GAME IS A PLAYOFF. Yet what we
found out is this: it is more beneficial to LOSE a PLAYOFF GAME in the BCS than it is to WIN one.

And that's the clincher, there. For all the negative you can say about baseball's nutty system and the NFL - at least
in those sports when a team loses a playoff game, it doesn't go to the championship.

KrAzY3 said:
Let's not even get into the travesty that a 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 plus one would be, l

Let's not because it's irrelevant.

KrAzY3 said:
Let's not even dig into how much that would scar the postseason if you put the conference champ qualifier on things.

Again - most folks arguing PLUS ONE are NOT saying this.

KrAzY3 said:
Then, as if that's not enough let's consider things further. I saw it suggested here, that for example Utah in 2008 would have been placed ahead of Alabama if there had been a plus one. Oh really, so the suggestion is that the polls would have intentionally rigged things so that the team they felt was inferior would jump another team so they could be in a plus one?

You mean like they're rigged now? With people voting in it in games that affect themselves?

KrAzY3 said:
I hope that's not true, but it's possible.

Not only that, it happened in the last regular season poll.

KrAzY3 said:
We've seen the polls try to move things around a bit in the past, the problem is they have limited space in which to work. If they knew the importance of #4, they could use the position strategically and unfortunately I do think you'd see it used (not just by coaches, by writers primarily) to try and position the team they wanted into a plus one.

Like they do now with number two?

KrAzY3 said:
The idea that we could, as though we tolerate the notion, suggest that the polls would unethically promote a team for the sake of gaining entry into a plus one is horrid.

Sure, there's never been any BCS controversy over #4 (cough! Texas 2004 over Cal).

KrAzY3 said:
This, slippery slope aside, is what I can not stomach about a plus one. I'd rather see us go back to the old bowl system than implement a conference champs only +1.

You and I actually agree on this.

KrAzY3 said:
I said before the only plus one I could stomach was a 2 (at home) vs 3 with 1 having a bye.

And after 15 straight years when one wins the game, they'll go ahead and add the fourth team anyway.

KrAzY3 said:
But, ultimately a plus one is a very bad idea because of #4.

Not true.

KrAzY3 said:
It pushed LSU into a Stanford game, which if the Alabama game was an insult, that one would have been a slap in the face.

Not if the season BEGAN with that system it would not.

KrAzY3 said:
It would put undeserving team after undeserving team into it, and why?

2000 Florida State over Miami over Washington
2001 Nebraska over Colorado over Oregon
2003 Oklahoma over USC
2004 you admit the blunder so let's press on
2007 2-loss Oklahoma was somehow less deserving than two-loss LSU (despte both of those losses
being in November for Pete's sake)
2008 - OU over Texas

Your move.

KrAzY3 said:
So the media could stop bashing the process?

Don't really care about this.

KrAzY3 said:
In the hope that we'd sate their need for inclusion? Unfortunately, we'll see a +1 long before we see a #4 that actually deserves to be in it.

An opinion but nothing more.

RTR

Changing the bowl system because of Alabama

TideFans Legend

All-American

1st Team

BamaNation Citizen

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

BamaNation Citizen

2nd Team

BamaNation Citizen

Hall of Fame

All-American

BamaNation Citizen

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

1st Team

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!