This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. 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!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

A Split National Championship in 2008?

Discussion in 'Buckeye Football' started by LordJeffBuck, Jan 3, 2009.

  1. LordJeffBuck

    LordJeffBuck Illuminatus Emeritus Staff Member

    Well, we all thought that Southern Cal would beat Penn State pretty handily in the Rose Bowl, thereby putting their name into the national championship picture. But now Utah has really screwed things up by smoking SEC runner-up Alabama in the Sugar Bowl to finish with a perfect 13-0 record. And of course Texas might be the best team in the country, and they have already beaten one of the BCS finalists (Oklahoma) by ten points on a neutral field.

    The winner of the BCS title game will be the BCS champion, but the AP pollsters do not have to follow suit. Here are some possibilities for a split championship:

    1. Texas beats Ohio State; Oklahoma beats Florida.
    The argument for Texas: "We have the same record as Oklahoma, and we beat them head-to-head by ten points on a neutral field."

    The counter argument: There really isn't one, unless Oklahoma blows out Florida and Texas wins a tight contest against Ohio State. In that case, you could argue that Texas caught Oklahoma early in the year, and that Oklahoma has bypassed Texas since that time. Also, Texas's loss to Texas Tech doesn't look so good any more, after the Red Raiders got pounded in the Cotton Bowl.​
    2. Ohio State beats Texas; Oklahoma beats Florida.
    The argument for Southern Cal: "Texas beat Oklahoma by 10 points; Ohio State beat Texas; we beat Ohio State by 32 points; clearly, we could beat Oklahoma."

    The counter argument: You simply can't lose to middle-of-the-road teams during the regular season, especially when you play in a "weak" conference like the Pac-10. In addition, the Penn State victory wasn't all that impressive (at least on the score board - in reality, USC coasted in the second half). However, USC will get a "strength of schedule" boost from the Pac-10 bowl victories, and also from an Ohio State win.​
    3. Florida beats Oklahoma.
    The argument for Utah: "Florida needed a fourth-quarter comeback to beat Alabama by 11 points on a neutral field; we beat Alabama by 14 points in SEC territory, and the game wasn't even that close. And we have a better record than Florida (13-0 versus 13-1)."

    The counter argument: Strength of schedule. Period.​
    If either Oklahoma or Florida wins in a rout, then the split championship discussion is probably moot, but I could definitely see the AP voters going contrarian if the BCS title game is close and/or sloppy.
  2. Buckeyeskickbuttocks

    Buckeyeskickbuttocks Z --> Z^2 + c Staff Member

    If the AP pollsters are indeed a simple popularity contest with a design on blowing up the BCS, I'd expect Utah to get the nod.

    Of course, there is the USC-knob-fest factor, so .....
  3. buckeyemania11

    buckeyemania11 HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE!!!

    the only team that might have some sort of legit claim for a split title is Utah, being that they are the only undefeated team

    if you lose a game and dont get into the title game, its nobodies fault but your own
  4. LordJeffBuck

    LordJeffBuck Illuminatus Emeritus Staff Member

    And the pollsters ... and the computers....
  5. buckeyemania11

    buckeyemania11 HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE!!!

    If you are a BCS conference team and you win all of your games you usually control your own destiny (Auburn in 2004 being the exception)

    Once USC and Texas lost, they no longer controlled their own destiny

    nobodies fault but their own that they lost, pollsters and computers didnt make them lose..................

    is this not true?
  6. So your argument is that arbitrary selections of BCS title teams are infallible? Sorry, but I don't buy that. Teams do have control over their destiny at the beginning of the season, but when some end up with the same record, it's entirely up to the voter to exercise common sense judgment, which they failed to do by selecting OU over UT.

    If we consistently apply the rationale that voters used to propelled the Sooners into the title game, then Alabama should also have been selected to play in the title game. Why? Because 'Bama and UF have the same record, and 'Bama defeated the team that handed UF's only loss of the season.

    There's no way the voters can come out right in this. Even if you agree with the logical basis for OU's selection, you can not justify why Alabama wasn't given the same treatment.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  7. LordJeffBuck

    LordJeffBuck Illuminatus Emeritus Staff Member

    The pollsters and computers didn't make Florida and Oklahoma lose either, yet both of them are in the BCS title game over teams that lost (Texas, Southern Cal, Penn State) and teams that didn't lose (Utah, Boise State). Is that not true?

    Did Oklahoma and Florida control their own destinies any more than Southern Cal, Texas, and Penn State? And what about Utah and Boise State, who didn't lose at all during the regular season?

    And may I infer from your comments that you are the rare Buckeye fan who doesn't think that Ohio State was screwed by the pollsters/BCS in 1996 and 1998?

    The only way to get a true, undisputed national champion in college football is for the NCAA to institute a play-off system, preferably with 16 teams. Otherwise, there will almost always be questions and controversy regarding the MNC. This season, there are at least five teams that could claim to be the best in the land (Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Southern Cal, Utah), but the BCS system will give only two of those teams (Florida and Oklahoma) the chance for the title.
  8. Nicknam4

    Nicknam4 Pootis

    I would like having NCAA playoffs, however they have their cons too. If the best team gets an injury or two on the first round they are screwed for the most part.

    However this could keep the same teams from winning the NC all the time. (USC, Texas, tOSU, ect...)

    IDK, it could work.
  9. buckeyemania11

    buckeyemania11 HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE!!!

    I never said voters bear no responsibility for their picks

    my point is

    this is implying toward BCS Conference teams

    if USC wins the game vs Oregon State or Texas wins the game vs Texas tech, THEY DONT PUT THEIR FATE INTO THE HANDS OF THE VOTERS/COMPUTERS

    but since they did lose, it was put into the hands of the voters/computers

    the voters/computers did not force USC and Texas to lose................

    if they win the games they lost they would be in the title game, its as simple as that, but since they lost its nobodies fault but their own that they are not in the title game

    1. yes, im not going to argue for Ohio State in 96/98

    2. im not arguing against a playoff

    im arguing against a split title

    in the system present, its just tough luck for USC and Texas, maybe next year
  10. Nicknam4

    Nicknam4 Pootis

    Both Utah and Boise State did not lose, yet their fates were put into the voter's hands, and were not given a chance in the title.
  11. buckeyemania11

    buckeyemania11 HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE!!!

    if you scroll up you will see that I said Utah is the only team that has some sort of legit argument for a split title
  12. Jake

    Jake Run the damn ball!

    Here we go again.

    Your argument can be applied to Florida and Oklahoma as well. That fact makes it a meaningless argument because it does nothing to distinguish the Gators and Sooners from the teams who did not get selected for the NC game.
  13. These are simply contradictory statements. The second statement is in fact saying that since all blame rests on the teams, then no amount of blame should be directed toward the voters. It directly contradicts the first statement, which says that voters should take some blame for their picks if they are wrong.

    You can't have it both ways while making an argument. :wink2:
  14. Jake

    Jake Run the damn ball!

    Utah killed SC's argument last night when added to the fact they defeated the only team who beat SC, as well. I suspect Brent and Herbie shed a few tears last night after their menage e trois with Petey the day before...
  15. buckeyemania11

    buckeyemania11 HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE!!!

    how is it contradictory?

    if USC and Texas win all of their games, they dont put themselves in the situation where the voters decide their fate

    but they did put themselves in that situation.....

Share This Page