A Split National Championship in 2008?

[lvbuckeye]

If you think I do, you haven't been reading all my posts.

Post 107 above

Either read all my posts and continue this discussion, or don't hold it against me when I ignore you.

sorry, i missed that post. i would point out that the bottom feeders in the MWC beat some traditionally "great" teams this year, but i guess that won't matter to you since, you are only speaking in generalities and not actually looking at facts.

That's great, LV... except 2008 is one season and says nothing about your Hawaii's and Boise States of years gone by.

Hawaii is the only outlier. Boise State beat the traditional power.

Once again... all I ask is that you read my posts and quit making assumptions about my arguments which I have already discussed. I hope that isn't asking too much.

and i hope it isn't asking too much for you to see that the mid-majors are 3-1 in BCS games, and not the other way around. the mid-majors are better than the ACC (1-4) and Big East (3-2) in BCS games in the last 5 years. hell, they're better than the Big Ten (2-5) too.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

You're side has not given me the same courtesy.

No. You just brush off our arguments because it goes against what you are saying. You contradict yourself by saying "just win all your games and you control your own destiny". We pointed out teams that have won all their games and have not controlled their own destiny.

I've illustrated why

Yes, but you have not been convincing.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

sorry, i missed that post. i would point out that the bottom feeders in the MWC beat some traditionally "great" teams this year, but i guess that won't matter to you since, you are only speaking in generalities and not actually looking at facts.

Give me a specific... A MWC bottom feeder who beat a traditional power. Let's see what you're talking about face on. Michigan is a traditional power, but they sure did suck shit this year. Impress me with real facts, if you're gonna go all "facts" on me.

Hawaii is the only outlier. Boise State beat the traditional power.

As I said, one team can indeed rise up to the occasion for 60 minutes. the rest of Boise's 2006 body of work came against a schedule rated 90th! Impressive, indeed.

and i hope it isn't asking too much for you to see that the mid-majors are 3-1 in BCS games, and not the other way around. the mid-majors are better than the ACC (1-4) and Big East (2-3) in BCS games in the last 5 years. hell, they're better than the Big Ten (2-5) too.

I can see that plain as day. Now, you'll be willing to indulge me as to why bowl records have some special relevance, right? It's not self evident.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No. You just brush off our arguments because it goes against what you are saying. You contradict yourself by saying "just win all your games and you control your own destiny". We pointed out teams that have won all their games and have not controlled their own destiny.

Do you not read stuff in parens as well? My discussion has never been that simple "win and you're in or in control" it's always considered body of work and overall performance. If you go 12-0 and don't get in.. it's easy, play a harder schedule. I've said that since the beginning this morning. If you're going to accuse me of bushing stuff off and contradicting myself, you'd be better served to use an example of me actually doing that than what you've done here.

Yes, but you have not been convincing.

OK? What more would you like to hear? I mean, you're apparently convinced by "they deserve it" and I'm not sure I can compete with that... but... give me a heads up on what it'll take and I'll see if I can be accommodating.

 

[Bucklion]

I think the plus one is also a dumb shit proposal. Who would have been in the plus one game this year? Florida and Texas, or Florida and Utah, or Florida and USC? It's the same problem, it just adds another game, unless it is a true 4 team playoff, where it is 1-4 and 2-3, with the winners playing a week later. I've heard both proposals (4 teams seeded, 2 highest ranked teams after bowl week) thrown around. One is a 4 team playoff, one is nothing new but an extra game, because Utah and Texas (if USC went, for example) could still harp they deserved it as much as Texas did and Florida proved nothing by beating Texas. Of course the first proposal would require a return to the traditional bowl format, with the conference champs automatically going wherever they are supposed to go each season, and an 8 team playoff would probably have included Texas Tech, who lost to Ole Miss, so...

Ah, fuck it, where's the beer?

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

OK? What more would you like to hear? I mean, you're apparently convinced by "they deserve it" and I'm not sure I can compete with that... but... give me a heads up on what it'll take and I'll see if I can be accommodating.

I am not convinced that they deserve to be national champs, I am convinced they deserve to play for the national championship in a playoff format. Utah proved they can beat a top tier SEC team at a neutral site.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Give me a specific... A MWC bottom feeder who beat a traditional power. Let's see what you're talking about face on. Michigan is a traditional power, but they sure did suck shit this year. Impress me with real facts, if you're gonna go all "facts" on me.

Wyoming (1-7 MWC) won AT Tennessee (3-5 SEC).
UNLV (2-6 MWC) won AT Arizona State (4-5 Pac Ten).

As I said, one team can indeed rise up to the occasion for 60 minutes. the rest of Boise's 2006 body of work came against a schedule rated 90th! Impressive, indeed.

when are you going to start with the attendance argument? the rest of Boise 2006 record came with zero losses. i think they may have risen to the occasion 13 times, not once.

I can see that plain as day. Now, you'll be willing to indulge me as to why bowl records have some special relevance, right? It's not self evident.

again, LMAO. i see you don't let facts get in the way of your argument. bowl records aren't relevant? really? so if Big Ten hadn't crapped itself in BCS games in the last 3 years (0-5), the media would still be dogging them, right? please.

i get where you're coming from. tradition. to whit, your argument in post 107 regarding the traditional (you said "general," but it's all the same) strength of Big Ten teams. i get that. tradition is one of the things that makes college football so great. conversely, greed, in the guise of tradition, is what is killing college football.

the Big Ten has traditionally been the Big Two and the Little Eight. yeah, Minny or Sparty might be a team that occasionally rises up and beats one of the traditional powers, but a 12% chance doesn't bolster your argument about other teams playing in supposedly weaker conferences. not to mention the fact that other than Iowa in '02, and Wisky in '06, no Big Ten team not named Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State has been remotely relevant in the national title race in two decades. sure, those big two (+1) are "traditionally" frigging monstrous gorillas, but they don't deserve a free pass when they aren't getting it done.

will the Big Two (+1) most likely be in the title race more often in the future than the likes of Utah? Buckeyes and Penn State, sure! Meatchicken looks like it will be a while... but that presumed future success shouldn't preclude the likes of Utah and Boise State from garnering the same accolades as any so-called traditionally "good" team that is great in any given year...

you say the mid majors don't deserve a shot because they don't play tough enough schedules, even when the fact that when they actually DO get a shot indicates that indeed they CAN play with the big boys.

BKB: "they aren't good enough. their schedules are weak"
others: "but they've proven they can compete when given the opportunity."
BKB: "results don't matter. traditionally they aren't good enough."

yeah, that's logic.

gotta run. i'll be back later.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

What rings hollow is substance from your side of the aisle. Pot shots and assumptions... you've got plenty... now... prove your case.

Just because someone's argument is not the same as yours, it does not mean it rings hollow. I don't think anyone can prove their case in your eyes if it is an opinion other than yours.

 

[PatMicMac]

I would think that's just for ease of discussion. In a true plus one, I doubt the match-up would be 1 v 2, 3 v. 4, the winners meet. It'd probably be 1 v 4, 2 v. 3.

Yeah, I understand that. But it just doesn't make sense to talk about a plus one for what the system has evolved into. One option is to force two of the 4 (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) true BCS bowls to break their tie-ins and have the 1v4 and 2v3. The Rose would probably be against this because of the tradition factor. The other option would be to keep the original tie ins for the conference champions and to have the NC occur a week or two weeks later. I guess the problem with this is that teams would have the month of December to prepare for their bowl game, but then only 1-2 weeks to prepare for the NC game. I do, however, believe that this model would be the more likely one for the BCS executives to accept. It would keep the tradition of the bowl games, include only one extra game for only the top two teams, and increase the ratings for all BCS games that have a top 4 team involved.

I think the plus one is also a dumb [censored] proposal. Who would have been in the plus one game this year?

Don't think that a plus one would have worked this year, but not because of the reasons you mentioned. I think that if you're going to have the plus one model, you can't force the #1 and #2 teams to play each other until the final game.

 

[cincibuck]

LMAO. that argument rings hollow when you see that Utah was the one beating up on Bama.

Yep, Utah beat 'Bama, Boise State once beat Okie and one year Air Force beat an Ohio State team.

Shit happens.

Would you put money on the underdog if Alabama, Okie, Ohio State needed to win that bowl game to advance in a national tournament?

Sure, you'd hit one now and then, but you'd go broke if you applied that logic across a series of bets.

If the games had been Texas - Boise, Okie - TCU, Bama - Utah, how would you have bet? It's one thing to say a Utah deserves a BCS bid, it's another to put real, hard earned money on the possibility that size, tradition, conference strength, and program income won't outperform a hunch that any given Utah will out perform an Alabama. I fail to see how such upsets factor into a National Champioship consideration. I'll have to see a consistent pattern of MWC bowl wins over the twos and threes of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 before I buy into any notion of equity.

But that's not my real beef with the current system.

My objection to the bowls is that 1) they are first and foremost about making revenue for the tourism industry in the Sunbelt 2) As such, they are based on demographics (to include racism) which exsisted in the 1930s and have little or no relevance to today. 3) They perpetuate the myth that bowl games can't be played outside the Sunbelt due to weather 4) They have built-in regional biases that impact on who gets the larger fan base in the game 5) my firm belief that the crowd affects a) team performance, b) referee judgement, c) outcomes 6) the fact that Vegas gives any "home" team six to 7 points off the top in establishing odds in ANY game.

As currently aligned the bowls USUALLY act to the detriment of any team from the Big 10 and most of the Big East and Big 12 and USUALLY acts to the benefit of any team from the Pac 10, SEC or ACC.

Yet the media and fans use the results of biased games to establish rankings and evaluations of conferences.

One major improvement to the current system would be to establish bowl sites in the Midwest and Northeast and regularly shuffle the premier BCS games through those sites. If no one will leave LA to watch USC play the Big 10 Champ in Soldier Field, on January 1-5; tough shit. If Alabama fans would not leave the South to watch the Tide play Oklahoma in St. Louis or the Meadowlands, not my problem. There is no reason on God's green earth why Florida could not have played Oklahoma in the 'shoe this past Thursday except, "We've never done it that way before."

"But you won't get anyone to go to the game." I think that's nonsense. 1) attendance has everything to do with the product offered. If you're talking about watching a game between the MAC chamipon and Florida International you're not going to get a crowd anywhere. Those teams don't have a fan base to begin with as established by their regular season attendance figures.

Now make the match up Alabama - Penn State, or Texas - Ohio State and put one game in Chicago and the other in New York. I don't think you'll see a drop off in numbers, but even if you did, it's not the biggest problem in generating income from the games. In fact, as proven everytime the guy in the red hat steps onto the 20 yard line and takes the game away from the refs and the folks in the stands, the revenue from attendance is significantly less in value than the revenue from TV commercials. That's the tail that wags the dog.

 

[Taosman]

Boise State will bear watching as they return everyone!
Open with Oregon! And have Tulsa on the 2009 schedule.

Sept. 5 vs. Oregon, Sept. 12 at Toledo, Sept. 19 vs. UC Davis, Sept. 26 vs. Miami (Ohio) and Oct. 3 at Tulsa.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I am not convinced that they deserve to be national champs, I am convinced they deserve to play for the national championship in a playoff format. Utah proved they can beat a top tier SEC team at a neutral site.

And my question to you is this - why? I've been discussing "why not" but other than trying along with LV to take pot shots at my position neither of you have established why a playoff. Why are you convinced anyone deserves a chance to play for a championship in playoff format.

Wyoming (1-7 MWC) won AT Tennessee (3-5 SEC).
UNLV (2-6 MWC) won AT Arizona State (4-5 Pac Ten).

As I suspected.

when are you going to start with the attendance argument? the rest of Boise 2006 record came with zero losses. i think they may have risen to the occasion 13 times, not once.

I'm not going to start with the attendance argument. I am going to repeat one thing though: 90th rated schedule. 75% of college schedules were harder than Boise State's. Sure, they "rose to the occasion" but it's kind of like jumping over match-boxes instead of hurdles.

again, LMAO. i see you don't let facts get in the way of your argument. bowl records aren't relevant? really? so if Big Ten hadn't crapped itself in BCS games in the last 3 years (0-5), the media would still be dogging them, right? please.

Ummm.... I said you have to establish how bowl records are relevant to YOUR argument. I said it wasn't self evident. I will ask you again, don't turn this around as silent comments on what I'm "ignoring," do me the simple courtesy of establishing why bowl records are to be treated with special... or any... signifigance. Until you do that, I'm content that you're not reading what I have to say, and frankly, LV, I'm tired of having to spell it out to you multiple times every time we argue. You hold me to positions where I stated the precise opposite. You take a question from me and appply straw man assumptions to my argument... and it's tiring.

That is to say, I don't know why you're laughing your ass off. I didn't say bowl records are irrelevant. I asked YOU to establish WHY they ARE relevant. So, please, for the love of shit, do so....

i get where you're coming from. tradition. to whit, your argument in post 107 regarding the traditional (you said "general," but it's all the same) strength of Big Ten teams. i get that. tradition is one of the things that makes college football so great. conversely, greed, in the guise of tradition, is what is killing college football.

I stand to gain nothing in taking my position. Greed might work if you're talking to college presidents and the like. But... you're talking to me. I trust at some point, you'll begin to argue the merits of a playoff instead of just trying to counter my position....

the Big Ten has traditionally been the Big Two and the Little Eight. yeah, Minny or Sparty might be a team that occasionally rises up and beats one of the traditional powers, but a 12% chance doesn't bolster your argument about other teams playing in supposedly weaker conferences. not to mention the fact that other than Iowa in '02, and Wisky in '06, no Big Ten team not named Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State has been remotely relevant in the national title race in two decades. sure, those big two (+1) are "traditionally" frigging monstrous gorillas, but they don't deserve a free pass when they aren't getting it done.

and yet you lead with Wyoming over Tennessee above. "12% chance doesn't bolster my argument" and you rest on that same 12% chance. (Now, I expect you to go do the math of all upsets ... or some upsets.. and show that it's not 12%... I'll spare you the work.. I'm just sorta "saying" it for effect, not the truth of the matter).

What free pass did Michigan get this year?

And, speaking of free passes.... what is "getting it done?" Ohio State and Penn State would have made a 16 team playoff. One of them, Ohio State, didn't "get it done" if our metric is conference championships.... But, if both were in a playoff, then one of them would be getting a so called "Free pass" No?

will the Big Two (+1) most likely be in the title race more often in the future than the likes of Utah? Buckeyes and Penn State, sure! Meatchicken looks like it will be a while... but that presumed future success shouldn't preclude the likes of Utah and Boise State from garnering the same accolades as any so-called traditionally "good" team that is great in any given year...

I must have missed the part where they didn't create an extra bowl game specifically for the purposes of giving the mid-majors an almost assured chance at a big pay out every year. As for if they'll have the chance to compete for the national title.... well, it's simple... schedule a schedule which is on par with the other "serious" competitors, and see what happens. It can be done, you know... They have the SOS ability to schedule as many as 4 games against top tier teams. They probably don't need to go against 4 top 10 teams to prove it, but the point reamins when their schedule ranks in the bottom 40% or so, they don't "deserve" much.

you say the mid majors don't deserve a shot because they don't play tough enough schedules, even when the fact that when they actually DO get a shot indicates that indeed they CAN play with the big boys.

I think I've been clear here. Any team can rise up and beat someone they shouldn't. My argument has never been that they can't play with the big boys... it's pretty clear that they can... my argument is the schedules they play make them "less worthy". Further, it is that when sperating otherwise like teams (ie record only) the schedule you earned that record against warrants analysis. The BCS does this.... differentiates between like teams. With analysis of objective factors to be considered.. it's not just a poll of human opinion.

BKB: "they aren't good enough. their schedules are weak"
others: "but they've proven they can compete when given the opportunity."
BKB: "results don't matter. traditionally they aren't good enough."

Like your comments about my job above, I wanted to just ignore this... but, I figure I'll address it in hopes you will make this the last of it's kind. The above is simply not what I'm saying. I've argued my position and told you expressly why I think certain facts apply in certatin spots and not others. Conversely, you've done little more than shoot holes in my position without ever outlining your own.

It gets quite old. Can you not outline your position affirmatively? Is that it?

yeah, that's logic.

I think you'll find it's buckeyefrank tossing around the word logic, not me. And I'd point out ad hominem tactics like you employ aren't good logic either. (though apparently quite impressive to Frankmp)

Just because someone's argument is not the same as yours, it does not mean it rings hollow. I don't think anyone can prove their case in your eyes if it is an opinion other than yours.

No... it rings hollow because it's not a position at all. Someone could prove their case "in my eyes" if they.... well.... argued the merits of their position. Affirmative statements of why a playoff is the answer to some question. it's really that simple. Neither you nor LV have laid out the merits of a playoff... I've attempted to establish the merits of the BCS... saying it does what it's supposed to do... it gives us a champion... etc...

Why is a playoff better?

Until you can posit a position, I'm done with your cute little commetary about what I'm avoiding and your assumptions on what I'm willing to believe and what I'm not so willing to believe. Again, quite simply... if you want to change my mind... you might start with outlining a position of your own rather than simply trying to shoot holes in mine.

There's a difference. Here it is that my position has not convinced you. That's fine. But, don't turn that around on me and suggest that I've been bull headed on the merits of your position.... How could I be? I don't even know why you advocate a playoff. I've heard no rationale.

So far as I know, your position is that the benefits of a playoff are just self evident. They're not. I would just like you to tell me what a playoff solves, how it solves it, and why it needed solving in the first place.

 

[sandgk]

In all fairness maybe lvbuckeye figures there's a thread already existing in which he has, already, expressed his full throated embrace for a playoff.

#1 based on what though? computers? BS beauty contest polls? actual (*gasp!*) head to head wins? a playoff won't solve anything.

Or maybe not?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In all fairness maybe lvbuckeye figures there's a thread already existing in which he has, already, expressed his full throated embrace for a playoff.



Or maybe not?

But, if LVs not arguing for a playoff..... well... then.... I guess I'll have to wait on Buckeyefrank to state an affirmative position in favor of a playoff instead....

 

[Best Buckeye]

I want to throw this into the fire. I have watched Bper's argue for months over whether or not there should be a playoff or not. I have listened to ESPN radios talking heads exhort playoff all day long for months.
I believe that there is such a hubbub this year by the media for a playoff because :
1. it's good for ratings.
2. Espn gets all the BSC games and they want the power and ALL the money they can get.
3. TV has already forces a lot of changes in THe collegiate game, they will want more. "if you want us to televise you have to play on this day?

The media doesn't give a hoot about any player other than is he/she good for business and how many more billions they can make from an extended season.
But the media is butting heads against every institution that now is involved in the bowls and football.

Every Major bowl doesn't want a playoff if it involves their money AND their tradition.

The hard question about playoffs is not if a playoff can be done but how can it be implemented.
The Collegiate administrators and Trustees don't want it because of scheduling and seasons that run too long into the next semester or interfer with exam week.
Colleges "own" football and they are in the business of education not football. They care more about students graduating than making more money from a playoff.
And they feel the present system is adequate.
How can you get a playoff that matches the Bowls criteria for getting the major games into their bowl as they have been getting for decades.
A 16 team playoff , for example, on a rotating basis would sooner or later leave the Orange bowl with the 15th and 16th ranked team. I wonder how you can convince them to do that?
And oh yes. How do you take care of the 17th and 18th ranked teams who beat a top teir team and feel they should be in the playoff?

What say you Oh you mighty playoff panderers ?