BCS-The Debate

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:11 pm

Blue breeze, you are killin me man.

Dead wrong time after time but still talkin. I love it. Reminds me of myself.

You anti MI guys are full of it. "MI had ther chance" Bull ticky. Not in a champioship game on a neutral field.

FLA had its chance to and it lost a game, except not to the then and still #1 team

I thought USC was your darling team. If they are as good as you and the rest of your crowd spewed forth afer they beat an overrated ND team at home, we wouldnt be havin this little chat now would we.

The USC crowd that includes you and IS and that ChrisK character , ought to just quitely accept the Blue and forget all this Florida nonsense.

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:34 pm

packerboy wrote:Blue breeze, you are killin me man.

Dead wrong time after time but still talkin. I love it. Reminds me of myself.

You anti MI guys are full of it. "MI had ther chance" Bull ticky. Not in a champioship game on a neutral field.

FLA had its chance to and it lost a game, except not to the then and still #1 team

I thought USC was your darling team. If they are as good as you and the rest of your crowd spewed forth afer they beat an overrated ND team at home, we wouldnt be havin this little chat now would we.

The USC crowd that includes you and IS and that ChrisK character , ought to just quitely accept the Blue and forget all this Florida nonsense.

Don't see any other way to go, I can't go away, that would be cowardly. Was I wrong about USC? Absolutely. I believe Michigan is deserving, but I also believe Florida is deserving. Within the system that is currently set-up, it would make sense for Florida to go, and they have to get a shot to play for the national title. All this debate just proves further that a playoff system is needed.

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:01 pm

GOT

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:28 pm

If you're Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, how do you explain to your players that they won't be in the BCS Championship Game? How do you tell the second-best team in the country to get pumped about playing USC in the Runner-Up Bowl? How do you resist the urge of wishing Nutcracker drills on every person who jumped one-loss Florida ahead of the one-loss Wolverines in the final polls?

Lloyd Carr and Michigan lost to No. 1 by three points...and aren't title-game worthy.
There is no polite way of saying it: Michigan got jobbed. Sunday's rankings are Exhibits A-Z why the BCS means well, but simply doesn't work -- and never will.

Carr had to do what Auburn's Tommy Tuberville did two seasons ago. Tuberville's team finished the regular season 12-0, but was left out of the Tostitos BCS Championship Game in favor of undefeated USC and Oklahoma.

"It's hard," said Tuberville. "It's hard to look them in the eye. Heck, we're still not over it. You never get over it. It's like a question that's never been answered."

Carr is asking those same questions. And he'll get the same shoulder shrugs that Tuberville got.

Let me get this straight: Michigan, which was unbeaten against all teams on its schedule ranked lower than No. 1, isn't going to Glendale, Ariz., for the Jan. 8 national title game because ...

• It didn't win its conference.

No, it didn't. But did you see who did? Team by the name of Ohio State. Maybe you've heard of the Buckeyes? Undefeated. Ranked first in the country. Beat Michigan in Columbus by the grand total of three whole points.

And feel free to show me in the BCS handbook where it says you've got to win your conference to play in the championship game?

• Nobody wants to see a rematch.

Just asking, but how did Ali-Frazier II and III work out? Or that Georgetown-Villanova Final Four?

I know Florida's Urban Meyer doesn't want to see a rematch, but he's not exactly an impartial observer, is he? And if Meyer were in Carr's Nikes, I guarantee you his objections to a second Ohio State-Michigan game would have disappeared.

A rematch, this time on a neutral field, would have been a game for the ages. And if you threatened to take away his precious sweater vest if he didn't tell the truth, I bet you Buckeyes' coach Jim Tressel would rather play Florida than have to face the Wolverines again (Tressel declined to vote in the final coaches' poll).

• Florida played a tougher schedule.

Agreed. But strength of schedule is part of the equation, nothing more. Tuberville's 2004 team had the strongest strength of schedule, but didn't make it.

You want to give the Gators the edge based on scheduling? Fair enough, though you could argue that Florida didn't exactly beat vintage Alabama, Georgia and Florida State teams this year, and Central Florida and Division I-AA Western Carolina were dreadful.

And look at the one loss each suffered by Florida and Michigan on their schedules. You tell me which defeat was more impressive: the Gators' 10-point road loss to an Auburn team that finished the season No. 9 in the BCS standings? Or the Wolverines' three-point road loss to an Ohio State now favored to win the national championship?

• The BCS system rewarded Florida for finishing its season with wins at FSU and against Arkansas at the SEC championship in Atlanta.

And the BCS penalized Michigan twice for being on the wrong end of the calendar: once when USC moved to No. 2 after beating Notre Dame (even though Michigan beat the Irish worse), and now, when Florida overtook the Wolverines (even though U of M's season ended two weeks ago).

How can you call this a "system" when Florida belongs to a league that plays a conference championship, and Michigan doesn't? How can you call it a quasi-playoff when Michigan drops twice in the standings without losing a game.

• Florida has earned the right to play Ohio State.

Absolutely true. But so has Michigan.

Ask the coaches at Vanderbilt (the Commodores played both Michigan and Florida this season) who is the better team, and the consensus pick -- privately, of course -- is the Wolverines. Florida has more speed and a handful of players to die for, they say, but Michigan is more physical, would control both sides of the line of scrimmage, have wonderful wide receivers, and are led by a senior quarterback who doesn't make many mistakes.

Ask them who would give Ohio State the better game, and you'll get the same answer.

Tuberville voted Ohio State, Florida and then Michigan on his final ballot. "But I watched Michigan this year," he said. "Heck, I think they could beat anybody. But that's the way the system is. It's a screwed-up system."

Michigan never had that chance. It was 11-1 on Nov. 18. It was 11-1 on Dec. 3. But between then and now the Wolverines apparently became the cellulite queens and somehow lost the swimsuit portion of this ridiculous BCS beauty pageant.

Michigan didn't do a thing wrong. And yet Carr was the one who had to console his team Sunday night. He did it, but here's guessing he wasn't Mr. Congeniality.

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:44 pm

I removed all credibility from that article after the author noted that the Wolverines have a senior QB who doesn't make mistatkes, Henne is a JR.

JK, but it's an oversight. He is right that Michigan has earned the right to play for the title, but so has Florida, and the system is critically flawed. The debate will wage on until, or if, a playoff system is introduced.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:19 pm

If you're Lloyd Carr you look at your players and tell them the truth, you lost, it may be unfair but life's not always fair. Using that logic eliminates Michigan anyway and puts Boise St. in the BCS title game because they lost to 0 teams rated anywhere. Is it the players fault? They did lose a game, but the coaches and AD scheduled such a cream puff schedule that along with playing in the bad Big Ten probably did them in. If Michigan had played 2 legitimate NC opponents things might be different, but they didn't. By the way Michigan isn't favored over USC, that ought to tell you a lot about what kind of reputation Michigan has.

Ali-Frazier fought in Manilla for cripes sakes that's how much of a demand there was for a rematch. They turned out to be good fights but that's hindsight. Also to paraphrase, Michigan, you're no Muhammad Ali. When there's a total of 3 heavyweights and 1 is Ali the whole argument is beyond stupid.

Who's to say OSU doesn't blow out Michigan by 24? It was a 11 point game until a garbage time TD by Michigan made it 3. OSU gained over 500 yards on Michigans vaunted defense. Vegas had OSU favored by 14 over Michigan in the first game, the early line has OSU by 7.5 over Florida, given the 3 point home field advantage Vegas thinks Florida is the better team. (The hypothetical lines posted last week had OSU by11 over Michigan, 9 over USC) They didn't build all those fancy Casino's being stupid.

As I heard yesterday, OSU may be the best team in the country, but they also played in the bad Big Ten and to make matters worse they didn't play the 3rd and 4th place teams in that conference. Their non conference wins were over 9-3 Texas (other losses to Kansas St. and Texas A&M) Cincinnati, N. Illinois, and Bowling Green. So a legitimate question is how good is Ohio St.?

Michigan didn't do a thing wrong? Yes they lost. They beat OSU and they play in the title game, they lost, period.

Lines for Big Ten teams in bowl games:
OSU -7.5 over Florida
USC -3.5 over Michigan
Wis -2 over Arkansas
Texas -11.5 over Iowa
Penn St. -6 over Tennessee
Maryland -4 over Purdue
Minn -7.5 over Texas Tech

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:35 am

Yes folks USC is the #2 team and deserves to play for the title.Brent Muffburger procalimed this as the Trojans were beating ND.

They had the tough shedule and were ever so talented. Blue Breeze, goldy, IS, ChrisK and the crowd bought into it and shouted it from on high.

"MI had its chance and they didnt win the conference and USC lost a long time ago when their best players were hurt and on and on and blah, blah blah. Anything negative about USC was exused. "

Well now its " Did I say USC? I meant Florida, yup thats the ticket, Florida"

What a joke.

The BCS wanted 2 teams form different parts of the country to play in the game so there would be more interest. Anything else is just spin.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:28 am

Well I did say if USC lost I'd be willing to argue for OSU-Michigan The Sequel. At this point I'm hoping that OSU crushes Florida to prove that the real no.1 v. no.2 game happened in November. Michigan will join a long line of teams that have been cheated in the current system. I just read a good book on the 1966 Alabama team that had won the previous 2 national championships and went undefeated but lost out to Notre Dame and Michigan State who had tied each other. And then there's Joe Paterno and Penn State who had a number of undefeated teams that didn't win the beauty contest.

Maybe this year's loopiness will finally convince the bowls and the NCAA to put together a playoff. As demonstrated this year the current BCS format creates almost as many conundrums as the old system.

State Champ 97 · Post by **State Champ 97** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:35 am

Packerboy I think you are absolutly right. The BCS is a joke. A week ago I don't think I heard anyone talking about Florida as a possibilty. Having a greater distance between the two teams to get a bigger audience. That sounds like a reasonable argument. Just think of the audiences they could have if they had a playoff. Not just one big one but many big audiences. Even if it was the top (however many) BCS ranked teams.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:36 am

Not to tot my own horn but back on page 4 I mentioned wanting Florida in the title game.

All 3 polls and the Vegas casino guys think Michigan is not the #2 team in the country, so it's not like Michigan is being snubbed. If Michigan was the favorite against USC I could see the srgument, but their not meaning at best they're the 3rd ranked team.

If you're a Michigan fan, if they beat USC handily and Florida wins a tight one over OSU there's a real possibilty of a split National title.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:18 am

Florida was mentioned but the gushing about USC was so profound and the certainty of their defeat of UCLA and toughness of their schedule so engrained in all of the really deep thinkers that the Gators were a mere footnote.

So when the air went out of that balloon , it was a smooth transition to just attribute all of the arguments that they were wrong regarding USC to Florida.

So the same geniuses that gave us USC as the #2 team, now give us Florida. Excellent.

State Champ 97 · Post by **State Champ 97** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:23 am

I admit I don't pay attention to college football very closely outside the gophers and who supposidly is #1. I am wondering if the Insight Bowl will be televised locally or just on the NFL network.

Knowlzee · Post by **Knowlzee** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:42 am

......maybe the "national title game", should be the "Insight Bowl"?

EREmpireStrikesBack · Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:33 pm

What's changed though Goldy? Michigan was #2 even after their loss to OSU. Then they didn't lose again and somehow they keep dropping. Just because some people don't think that Michigan's style of play is all that great, but it gets them W's. USC in my mind is still living off the USC name much like Notre Dame is. The odds makers? 1/2 the time they are wrong, so what good are they?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:06 pm

Another excellent year to argue a pre-Christmas semi-final with 1 & 4 and 2 & 3.

And a post-Christmas National Championship.

How many people would turn in to watch a double header of Florida - Michigan and USC - Ohio State????

They would probably get more a minute for commercials than the Super Bowl.

Irishmans Shanty · Post by **Irishmans Shanty** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:44 pm

Someone do some research here. The current BCS arrangement must be a contractual thing between the NCAA and the Sponsors. As soon as the contract expires you will see a playoff.

By the way, don't look for the NCAA to come out and say this is a flawed system yet. That would be just like an owner admitting his coach is substandard but allowing him to fulfill the contract because he is too cheap to fire him.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:07 pm

It is an agreement between the major conferences, I don't think the NCAA has anything to do with it. They don't crown National Champions for Div 1 football. Those major conferences would be hard to get to reverse that because they get a lot of $ out of the BCS deal ("The BCS bowls generate more than $110 million a year for the big conferences"). We just had a new contract go into place before this season and I think it runs until 2010.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:09 pm

I am in favor of a playoff. According to some, we already have a playoff in which Michigan was eliminated.

But even when we get playoffs, people will still whine if they dont get selected. Heck, we have 64 teams in BBall and there is still a lot of controversy about the selections.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:11 pm

How come nobody has said anything about Oklahoma? They won their conference, got jobbed in their 2nd loss by the refs and are a football name. Are they better than Florida?

Btw, all those "experts" aren't picking USC... (from CNNSI.com)

The way UCLA's defensive front pressured the Trojans, you have to wonder what Michigan's unparalleled front seven can do. Booty has the receivers to make UM pay, but can he get them the ball? Michigan 27, USC 21

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:41 pm

OSU put up over 500 yards of offense against Michigans front 7, USC has similar talent though their QB can't scramble as well but is a better pocket passer with the best reciever in the nation. I don't think that SI writer has much credibility or he'd be writing for a major weekly or daily not an online site.

ER, nothing changed for Michigan but things did change for Florida and USC. Florida won a conference championship, USC lost a football game.

I'm not sure you understand bookmaking. The oddsmakers put the line so 50% of the people will bet on each side, rarely are they so far off that barring injury or some other unforseen event that the opening line moves more than a point or two before kick off, even this far out. They also set a money line, or the chance each team will win. Go to Vegas and go to the big sportsbooks where people throw down 5K on an handfull of games every Saturday, they may miss the point totals but rarely miss the winner. Two games come to mind to illustrate my point; USC/UCLA; the game was on paper such a mismatch the line was set at 14 and -500, a number so high only the die hard UCLA fan would take UCLA straight up, many probably took UCLA +14, but seeing as 50% of the people bet on each side of the point spread it doesn't matter to the Bookmakers. Only a fool or someone with money to lose would bet a few thousand on UCLA straight up. The other was the New England/St. Louis Super Bowl. The one team they consistantly missed this year was Arkansas, I made quite a bit with them as not only were they dogs, but often heavy dogs even against teams like South Carolina, though at +240 heavy is a stretch. So ultimately they aren't wrong 50% of the time, they're right over 90% of the time. I'd have to do some figuring but I think it's about 94%. Pick up the Tribune and keep track of all the games on a Sunday or Saturday, over the course of a year they'll hit nearly all on the money line. People aren't stupid and they'll figure out if Vegas is slighting somebody good and bet them heavy.

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:02 pm

goldy313 wrote: All 3 polls and the Vegas casino guys think Michigan is not the #2 team in the country, so it's not like Michigan is being snubbed. If Michigan was the favorite against USC I could see the srgument, but their not meaning at best they're the 3rd ranked team.

Goldy,

USC is favored by 3 1/2. Rosebowl still in Pasadena? Thats 3 of them there. You think Michigan being idle for 2 extra weeks is worth a point?

Question, if USC was idle last week would they still be #2? Or would Florida's strength of schedule and conference championship move them up?

Your spinning this like a quadruple axel.

irishman · Post by **irishman** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:14 pm

No matter who you root for you cant argue against a playoff system

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:23 am

Actually UCLA plays in the Rose Bowl, USC plays in the LA Colisium, 1 team traveling further than the other isn't unusual in Bowls after all other than the Motor City Bowl all are South of the Mason Dixon line. There's no 3 point rule in college football, among other things parity isn't generally and issue; for instance Army won't get an automatic 3 points for playing at West Point when Notre Dame comes to town, Notre Dame will probably get more than 3 for playing Army at home. Certain teams like LSU have, over time, shown a distinct home field advantage over otherwise even teams and get points, others like Indiana or Minnesota don't. (the hypothetical 3 point rule is more of an old wives tale than fact anyhow) Is USC's 3 points because of home field? I doubt it, it's because of a myriad of things, cheif among them the Big Ten hasn't faired well in the Rose Bowl recently be it against USC, Texas, or Washington. Also the Big Ten representive has more fans than the Pac 10 team, though of course many "season" ticket holders are from the LA area, the Big Ten school sells more tickets than the Pac 10 team.

If USC had been idle they'd be #2, but they also would be a 1 loss conference champion not a 1 loss runner up. Florida still probably would have moved past Michigan which would have been a situation that cried for a playoff, but it didn't work out that way because of USC's loss.

I said a week ago I thought Florida had the best chance of beating Ohio St. of any team in the running, but barring the unforseen they had no shot. Well USC did the improbable and lost, so Florida got in. I've never changed my tune on it, I said from the start Michigan doesn't deserve to play because they didn't win their conference. I'm not sure how that's spinning.

By January we'll know alot more, but I'd guess the Big Ten doesn't win many Bowl games this year.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:00 am

Just for the record, I quoted that story wrong. It was from ESPN and the writer was:
Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:25 am

goldy, Saying a team doesnt deserve to play in the game because it isnt a conference champion is spinning.

There is no rule that says that.

Its just a way of rationalizing, a/k/a spinning, excluding MI.

National championships are won all the time by teams that dont win their conference.

It should be about the 2 best teams facing off. If one of them isnt a conference champ, so what? Especially if the othere team is the conference champ ,in the same confernce, and the only team they lost to.

I dont know if MI or FLA is the #2 team. I dont nkow if OSU is the #1 team. But to say a team is not the #2 team just because they didnt win their conference, no matter what the circumstanes, is spin.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

BCS-The Debate

Insight Bowl.....