A Split National Championship in 2008?

[GoBuckeyes81]

I don't think they would really want to have a split national championship however I think if we beat Texas and Florida beat Oklahoma. Utah will make a very solid case, it will prove the big 12 is overrated (Texas Tech lost to Ole Miss) and Utah will have the arguement that it beat Alabama in SEC territory.

 

[AKAK]

Top 10 when though? Preseason? When they played? At the end of the year?

Well the last ranking is the only one that matters... so, whatever it was.

I just remember Washington State falling out of the top ten (or losing to Washington) at the end of the year hurt Ohio State's BCS number... not that it mattered.. in '02. I kind of like that bonus, encouraged a good non-conference schedule because you'd play teams that if you beat them could still play thier way into a good ranking...

Of course, beat the #7 team in your last game, doesn't help you too much.

At any rate not arguing for or against it, just wondering if it was part of LV's formula.

 

[JXC]

A playoff is the BEST way to figure out who is national champion. That's why almost ALL sports have playoffs. It is much better than what we use now. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to believe. When it comes to finding a "national" champion...a playoff would be best. Right now we just have AP champion, and BCS champion and the such. But it can't be a "national" championship, because teams like Utah have ZERO shot. And last time I checked they are part of the nation, and in the same division as everyone else. A playoff may take away from the regular season, it may not, there are pluses and minuses when considering that. It would make college football different, and some fans don't want different, because to them there are things that are more important than a national championship. But if all you care about is having a fair, REAL, national championship in college football, then I can't see how you can be against a playoff system.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Fun with the Transitive Property

After tonight's game, I can't help but agree that there should be a split national title, and hope that you'll join me in supporting the 1-11 Idaho State Bengals as the co-champs with the Utes.

You see, their only win was against Sacramento State

who defeated Eastern Washington
who finished their season with a win over Weber State
who beat Montana in the regular season (lost the rematch)
who fell to James Madison in the playoffs
who were beaten earlier by William and Mary
victorious over New Hampshire
who upset Army
who triumphed over Eastern Michigan
who felled Central Michigan
who beat Western Michigan
who handed Illinois an enormous upset
after they had defeated Louisiana Lafayette
who ended Middle Tennessee State's season with a loss
but MTS found success against Maryland
who also defeated Clemson
winners against South Carolina in their huge rivalry game
yet the Gamecocks managed to beat Mississippi
the only team to defeat the Florida Gators.
​

And for those people who still believe that U$C would have an argument because they are "playing their best at the end of the season"- ISU's sole win was the last game of the year.

In addition, Eastern Washington (see above) beat Weber State, who lost to Cal Poly, who defeated San Diego State, who finished off their year by beating UNLV, who defeated Utah State, who counted Hawaii as one of their three victories, who conquered Fresno State, who defeated UCLA, victors over Stanford, Oregon State's opening loss. The Oregon State that beat U$C.

Oh, and Texas fans? Remember that you lost to Texas Tech, who was pounded by Mississippi, who... well, you know the rest.

​

 

[lvbuckeye]

Was there the victory over top ten bonus in that one too, or did they scrap that the year before?

don't know, but i'd put that back in too. nice catch...

my shoe is slowly going on the other foot with regards to a playoff... i still say Utah deserves it just as much as anyone. maybe more. getting rid of the conference bowl tie-ins are part of the solution. not sure if i'd be a proponent of scrapping the bowls altogether in favor of every game being played at the higher seeded school's stadium... though if that would make some SEC or Pac Ten school have to visit Columbus in December, i'd be all for it...

 

[lvbuckeye]

After tonight's game, I can't help but agree that there should be a split national title, and hope that you'll join me in supporting the 1-11 Idaho State Bengals as the co-champs with the Utes.

You see, their only win was against Sacramento State

who defeated Eastern Washington
who finished their season with a win over Weber State
who beat Montana in the regular season (lost the rematch)
who fell to James Madison in the playoffs
who were beaten earlier by William and Mary
victorious over New Hampshire
who upset Army
who triumphed over Eastern Michigan
who felled Central Michigan
who beat Western Michigan
who handed Illinois an enormous upset
after they had defeated Louisiana Lafayette
who ended Middle Tennessee State's season with a loss
but MTS found success against Maryland
who also defeated Clemson
winners against South Carolina in their huge rivalry game
yet the Gamecocks managed to beat Mississippi
the only team to defeat the Florida Gators.
​

And for those people who still believe that U would have an argument because they are "playing their best at the end of the season"- ISU's sole win was the last game of the year.

In addition, Eastern Washington (see above) beat Weber State, who lost to Cal Poly, who defeated San Diego State, who finished off their year by beating UNLV, who defeated Utah State, who counted Hawaii as one of their three victories, who conquered Fresno State, who defeated UCLA, victors over Stanford, Oregon State's opening loss. The Oregon State that beat U.

Oh, and Texas fans? Remember that you lost to Texas Tech, who was pounded by Mississippi, who... well, you know the rest.

​

fun. but none of those daisy-chains can possibly come up with a result of "who beat Utah," which is who i'm pimping anyway.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Concur wholeheartedly

fun. but none of those daisy-chains can possibly come up with a result of "who beat Utah," which is who i'm pimping anyway.

I'm a big fan of the Utes' claims this year, especially since they beat Oregon State (Sorry U$C), and their beating of Alabama takes care of Texas/Oklahoma/Florida.

Shoot, if a sketchy BYU team can claim a national title in 84, or U$C tout the one from 2003, I'm all for a Utah title.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

JXC - your semantic argument is unimpressive. You also assume that which is in question several times. Try again.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Playing devil's advocate here, BL...

The biggest argument for the playoff is that it would provide a means to an end. A real end. As in, this is the national championship, this is what you have to do to get it. Make the playoff, and win 4 games.

Such a system is in place already. The national championship is a clearly recognizable crystal ball which is carried off the field by the winner of the BCS National Championship game. Teams are aware that, in order to get a chance to play for it, they are best served to win all their games. In the event of a loss, they realize there are a host of factors which their chances turn on. Such is the consequences of losing control of your own destiny. But, anyway.. it's as simple as this - win all your games. (And if you win all your games and you still dont make it... schedule some more impressive opponents. No one wants to see a 12-0 team which beat up on a dreadful schedule. Respect is earned, not given.)

Does that determine the "best" team? WTF is the "best" team? Any two people could argue crippling defense versus 50 point offense until someone dies. Point being March Madness, the NFL Playoffs, whatever...they may not "determine the best team", per se, but they do crown a champion.

The current system also crowns a champion, but also gives us "the best" on some level (though an arguable one)

Every year.

Every year.

And the thing you need to do every year to get that championship is the same. Make the playoff, win 4 games.

We have that already and it puts high emphasis on the regular season. HIGH emphasis.. it also thereby preserves the emphasis on conference championships. (Unless you're in the big 12 I guess... lol) Win all your games. Not just 4. ALL. Win em, and you're in (again, and if you're not in, stop scheduling the Citadel or playing in a weak confernce)

Yes, computers and polls and all of that would still likely factor in as to how teams get into the playoff, but if you are #17, chances are you lost 2, probably 3, maybe even 4, games, so you have no right to whine.

Why not? Don't misunderstand, I agree that a 3 loss team, in a regular year, should have not "claim" to the title... your 16 team system, incidentally, gives such teams a chance (Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech this year being fine examples) to stake such a claim. How do playoff proponents reconcile this? Awareness that #17 has "no legit argument" but then affords #16 a shot at the title?

You're answer, I assume, is "you have to draw the line somewhere..." OK.. the current system draws that line at 2. Finnish at 1 or 2, you're in. 3? Thanks for playing... enjoy a multi-million dollar pay out at some other bowl.

A means to an end, so that 2009 Florida and 2012 USC and 2015 Ohio State and 2018 Texas or whoever the hell wins them can say they all won the same championship, because they accomplished the same thing in a given season.

You're simply choosing an arbitrary metric. Suppose 2012 USC goes 12-4, with it's final 4 wins being in your playoff system. Suppose also Ohio State goes 16-0 in 2015.. they did not accomplish the same thing. You say they do because you're choosing to look at an arbitrary set of games, 4. I can say the same, but just limit my arbitrary set to 1 game. Each champion will be able to say they won the "Championship Game" regardless of the rest.

Why not look at OOC schedule and declare a champion? It's a 4 game set at some point in the season... We'll use pre-season polls to determine the 16 teams who get "in" and then, after the 4th week, we'll call it all off...

I realize that's ridiculous, but a playoff really the same thing... just at the end of the season.... big f'in deal.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Teams are aware that, in order to get a chance to play for it, they are best served to win all their games. In the event of a loss, they realize there are a host of factors which their chances turn on. Such is the consequences of losing control of your own destiny. But, anyway.. it's as simple as this - win all your games. (And if you win all your games and you still dont make it... schedule some more impressive opponents. No one wants to see a 12-0 team which beat up on a dreadful schedule. Respect is earned, not given.)

We have that already and it puts high emphasis on the regular season. HIGH emphasis.. it also thereby preserves the emphasis on conference championships. (Unless you're in the big 12 I guess... lol) Win all your games. Not just 4. ALL. Win em, and you're in (again, and if you're not in, stop scheduling the Citadel or playing in a weak confernce)

Well said. That's what I love about the college football season--every single week feels like a must-win if you want to play for the NC. Who wants to see teams mail it in here and there during the reglar season because they are confident a spot will be there for them in a playoff? The way I see it, if you want to see a 4 loss team win it all, go watch the NFL. But leave the current college football system alone.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

i can think of 3 different instances offhand where the #1 overall seed didn't win the playoff THIS YEAR: the college world series, the MLB world series, and the NCAA basketball tourney...

That is because they are seeded by people who think they are experts. While this might be fine to see what team will play what team, the team still have to play and find out who wins. This college football season for each number one team there was some expert saying that this team is unstoppable and they did not see anyone who could beat them. Yet, they always lost.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

We have that already and it puts high emphasis on the regular season. HIGH emphasis.. it also thereby preserves the emphasis on conference championships.

Not really. Both Penn State and USC were conference champs with one loss and they got left out of the title picture. Utah was conference champs and undefeated and was left out of the title picture.

 

[cincibuck]

Where I still not aching from the first rate ass kicking the Trojans put on my Buckeyes... and Penn State, I would add that other than USC, the Pac 10 is a very brittle conference. You take one player out of the Oregon, Cal or Oregon State line up and there's no one behind him. Meantime USC has the bench stacked with guys who might be better than the guy on the field.

So, though the bucks lost, stomping them proved to be USC's undoing as that was the only challenge on their schedule.

 

[lvbuckeye]

except for Utah, the TRUE champs.

but how exactly would a playoff in football reconcile your point (which i do not agree with, btw. there's a reason that Fresno State was the equivalent of a 13 seed in 2008's college baseball tourney.)

your point is also why i will recognize Utah as a 2008 National Champion. if it's a subjective system anyway, then my opinion is as good as any... speaking of which, those 'Bama fans might be on to something... i'm going to claim Ohio State the 1998 National Champs since Sagarin said they were the best that year.

my opinion? (like anyone cares) plus one. or SMALL playoff. no more than eight. actually, i'd be cool with six or four. this year UT, UF, UU, and Boise could have duked it out. OU would have been out in light of their head to head loss against the Horns...

 

[lvbuckeye]

That is because they are seeded by people who think they are experts. While this might be fine to see what team will play what team, the team still have to play and find out who wins. This college football season for each number one team there was some expert saying that this team is unstoppable and they did not see anyone who could beat them. Yet, they always lost.

meant to quote you in my previous post. the seeding is done largely based on record. the Giants were a wild card team last year, which means that they weren't even the best team in their own division.

i honestly can see BKB's side in all this, but there's one sticking point, which is that those who share his view always say things like "well, they should have played in a better conference" when referring to teams like Utah. only they disregard important details like the fact that the Mountain West was the 4th or 3rd best conference this year... what those old-school hard-liners should really be saying is "they should have played in a conference that was good 80 years ago, because unless you've been good in the past, you can't possibly be good now," which is a load of horseshit.