-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter fourteenandoh
- Start date
Apache
Frank Kremblas wore #22
Best One Loss
I think Florida is the best of the one loss teams left, although you should check back in a week or two. There are so many good/great football teams left. you could make an arguement for Oklahoma and/or Texas, and tons of others. This is the first time that I have even considered the thought of a 4 team playoff that would actually be viable and constructive.
I think Florida is the best of the one loss teams left, although you should check back in a week or two. There are so many good/great football teams left. you could make an arguement for Oklahoma and/or Texas, and tons of others. This is the first time that I have even considered the thought of a 4 team playoff that would actually be viable and constructive.
Upvote
0
IronBuckI
Calmer than you are.
Florida is the best one loss team. USC is a very close second. Oklahoma is third...a distant third. No Big 12 team has a defense capable of making a critical stop against Florida, USC, or Penn State.
'Bama is going to get crushed by Florida in the SEC title game, and Texas Tech will likely have a let down against Ok St. this week and there will be eleventy million points scored in their game against Oklahoma. With Oklahoma winning the game.
In both of the Nationally televised Texas games I felt that the better team lost to a very talented opponent that played its ass off that day.
Any combination of Florida, USC, or Penn State will give us a very good NCG, IMO. I would much rather see USC vs. Penn State. Mostly because the NCG is in Miami, and secondly because I don't want to see us play USC in the Rose Bowl Game.
As for the argument for waiting until week 6 to release the polls. The Harris poll already waits until week 5 for it's release. The BCS poll is week 8. A huge problem that I see with the polls is that the most bogus of all the polls, the coaches poll, getting 1/3 of the weight in the BCS. Coaches simply do not watch enough games to have an informed opinion of what teams are the best...neither do the waterboys that actually vote for them. The smartest and most responsible thing that Coach Tressel could have done with his vote in 2006 was to abstain from voting.
Get rid of the coaches poll and get the AP Poll back into the equation. Make both polls accountable to the BCS but otherwise private. No journalist needs to be crushed by their own readers for not voting a two loss Ohio State #1.
Or...how about we just get a [censored]ing playoff worked out by the end of the current BCS contract?
'Bama is going to get crushed by Florida in the SEC title game, and Texas Tech will likely have a let down against Ok St. this week and there will be eleventy million points scored in their game against Oklahoma. With Oklahoma winning the game.
In both of the Nationally televised Texas games I felt that the better team lost to a very talented opponent that played its ass off that day.
Any combination of Florida, USC, or Penn State will give us a very good NCG, IMO. I would much rather see USC vs. Penn State. Mostly because the NCG is in Miami, and secondly because I don't want to see us play USC in the Rose Bowl Game.
As for the argument for waiting until week 6 to release the polls. The Harris poll already waits until week 5 for it's release. The BCS poll is week 8. A huge problem that I see with the polls is that the most bogus of all the polls, the coaches poll, getting 1/3 of the weight in the BCS. Coaches simply do not watch enough games to have an informed opinion of what teams are the best...neither do the waterboys that actually vote for them. The smartest and most responsible thing that Coach Tressel could have done with his vote in 2006 was to abstain from voting.
Get rid of the coaches poll and get the AP Poll back into the equation. Make both polls accountable to the BCS but otherwise private. No journalist needs to be crushed by their own readers for not voting a two loss Ohio State #1.
Or...how about we just get a [censored]ing playoff worked out by the end of the current BCS contract?
Upvote
0
fourteenandoh;1313060; said:
I guess you failed to see my point.
I listed 3 teams that were all undefeated.
Alabama started #24 and is now #1. They jumped both of the other temas without them losing.
Penn State started #22 and is now #2. They jumped Texas Tech (who started #12), but TTech has now jumped them back, depending on which poll you look at.
They're all undefeated, and their positions have fliipped. Many teams have jumped teams this year without the other team losing. By the end of the year, when it matters, teams get what they deserve in the polls.
In years when there's no movement at the top, like the USC-Texas year, those teams deserved to stay 1-2 the entire year.
Upvote
0
Holy Buckeye!
Next Victim Egg Hoke!
Florida hands down! Urban is really got that team playing well.
HB
HB
Upvote
0
martinss01
blissfully stupid
billmac91;1313098; said:
your making the same mistake everyone else makes when they judge the bcs as to whether or not its successful. the bcs is designed to match the #1 team against the #2 team in the nation. its just that simple. the bcs has NOTHING to do with matching the 2 "best" teams in the nation. why? because its very literally impossible for any system to do that. no matter what type of magical +1 or a billiontyumpteen team playoff system you come up with. there will always be a team with a legit complaint. no matter what you do or how you do it, you will never be able to please everyone. its just not possible.
Oricus;1313202; said:
yes, cuz a playoff format designed for 32 teams would work perfectly for a league with 119. not to mention teams that belong to conferences that aren't even in the bcs. oh and then there are those pesky independants... there is absolutely no way this could have any issues and every single team in d1 would be 100% content and happy at all times... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
back on topic. if i had to rate the top five of 1 loss teams in a particular order it would look like this:
1. texas
2. florida
3. usc
4. okie
5. okie st
personally i don't think you could go wrong with anyone in the top 6 or so being in the nc. im of the opinion that should they win out the top 3 should stay the same. tech and bama should go if they win out. psu doesn't have the schedule to jump anyone and should only get a chance should other teams falter. which is of course the spirit of the bcs. if you want to control your destiney you have a to play a hard schedule and win. if you want to play an easy schedule and go undefeated without issue, you have to count on luck to get you there. its a calculated risk and one that makes this all so interesting. the 3 best teams in the nation may not even make the nc, let alone the 2 best.
Upvote
0
martinss01
blissfully stupid
FWBuckeye;1313529; said:
5 years worth of dII and dIII playoffs all rolled into 1 would not equal the revenue generated for a city that hosts a single bcs bowl in a single year. noone, and i do mean NOONE, but the fans and whichever 3 teams who feel they were snubbed in the ncg in a given year actually want a playoff in dI. college football is ruled by cash. a playoff system no matter how you slice it will never be as financially viable to the host cities of these bowl games as the bowls themselves.
we can sit here and site the nfl model until we are blue in the face. but to duplicate that model we would be taking a stupid amount of revenue from the bcs bowl hosts. do you honestly think those cities are going to sit on their hands while their gravy train is taken away? even if you dub the bcs bowl sites members of a playoff system, which would be counter to the nfl model btw, those cities would still loose a significant amount of money. people will not travel with the team for a playoff game the same as they would for a singular bowl game. these cities make the money they do not just from the people in the stands, but also from the 3+ times as many people outside the stadium. people who need a place to stay, who go out and eat everyday, who buy things at local shops, who visit tourist attractions.
the bowl committees have far more power than people realize. moving these games or altering them in anyway... for the host cities its peoples jobs, its tax revenue, its reelection campaigns. for dI football to separate itself from the bowl system or even modify it would, imo, break down to a bloodbath worse than any presidential campaign. it would get very political and very ugly very quickly.
as a politician for any of the states currently hosting these bowls. to allow these games to be modified in anyway that would result in less revenue for the cities involved or lost completely would be political suicide.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oricus
Forza AC Milan
IronBuckI;1313303; said:
Bama may lose but they never get crushed in games. In my four years at bama 05-08, the worst loss bama suffered was a 14 point loss in 2006 at Florida and LSU. This Bama team is solid they will give Florida their best game of the season aside Ole Miss.
Upvote
0
Oricus
Forza AC Milan
martinss01;1313519; said:
Lets not be ridiculous, I think a level of objectivity can be seen in all this. Sure a few teams with a "Legitimate" complaint will arise that were left out of the playoff but HONESTLY do you really think people would care that the 13th or 14th team ranked got left out? They already have a Playoff Subdivision that encompasses a number of schools, what is stopping Division I to have the same?
We already have a system that rewards teams from the BCS Conferences which IMO is legitimate because on the whole I could never believe that any Mid Major is consistently on the same level. So, how could having a playoff that rewarded its competitors with a similar system be any different than what we have now, except that it would actually give an answer to what we all want.
Regardless:
I'd love to see Florida and USC square up, I think those two are easily the most talented.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
FWBuckeye
Heisman
martinss01;1313594; said:
Nobody but fans want to see a playoff? I think the majority of college football coaches and players would disagree with you there. Everyone from Pete Carroll to Mack Brown to Urban Meyer have stated their desire for a playoff system.
It is laughable that you seem to think that the current BCS bowl structure is the only financially viable option. For one I think a playoff system, or even a simple +1 game would a) be more fair and b) would generate substantially more television revenue for schools and conferences than the 5 BCS games would. Conferences make the bulk of their money from these games from television revenue, not ticket sales.
Right now you have a system where there is only one game that really counts for anything and four games that have very little meaning if you are not one of the two teams participating in one of those games. In a playoff system, let's say 8 teams for arguments sake, there would be a total 7 games that have the season on the line for each team. I think this would generate FAR more interest in the sport than some random Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl match up that has essentially nothing on the line. Take this year for example, maybe a Texas/Flordia matchup and USC/Alabama in the first round? Winners plays each other in the second round. I don't think you can deny that these matchups would generate far more interest than something like Texas vs. Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl to determine who sucks the least. Playoff games would see each team having the entire season on the line. Win or go home. I think that would generate much more interest than a game where the teams are just playing for pride and bragging rights. More interest=higher ratings, higher ratings=more money.
The only ones that would really suffer, as you said, would be the cities that host the BCS games. Schools and conferences don't give a crap about the cities that host these games and they shouldn't. Ohio State and the Big Ten should not care about Pasadena or Glendale. Their only interest should be themselves. The way I see it, a playoff would be more financially viable to the schools and conferences than the current BCS system is. Why should schools like Ohio State and Florida care what happens if New Orleans doesn't host a BCS bowl? They shouldn't. There is no reason to care. The current host cities would fight any attempt at change, sure, though I think you are being a bit dramatic since you come off sounding like the entire economy of those cities would go down in flames if they lost the BCS games. I would hope that LA/Pasadena, Phoenix/Glendale, New Orleans, and Miami would be stable enough to not have to think of these games as anything more than an economic bonus. Also one cities loss is another's gain. The cities that would be hosting these games, let's assume the college cities/towns for argument's sake, would fight just as hard in favor of a playoff system. How many people are estimated to travel to Columbus each year when Ohio State hosts Michigan? 500,000? Maybe more? You don't think the college cities and towns would be be fighting just as hard at the possibility of getting even half of that or more? I would think school presidents would be pushing very hard at the opportunity for their city to be hosting one or more playoff games in a season.
And do you seriously think people on the whole are going to vote out a politician because they lost a BCS game? There are far more pressing issues in these communities than a football game. If an entire cities economy rests on whether or not they get to host a college football game than I think there are far bigger issues at hand in our society.
Upvote
0
martinss01
blissfully stupid
sent you a pm fw, ive pushed this thread far enough off course as is :p.
Upvote
0