Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3993225. Show user_3993225's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending. : See. Now when did I ever say any of that? I said right now, as in now. And that they were dominant, which they are. 6 of the last nine, and five, probably going on six in a row is dominant, not to mention winning over half since the introduction of the BCS is dominant.  People say things about "the real championship" on national television broadcasts of games, college football analysts say it after games. It doesn't mean it is impossible for another team to win it ... it's a nod to how unlikely it is. The whole ... you're winning now, but you didn't always ... take strikes me as something a jealous fan would say. That is all. I mean, what the heck .... I hear the same thing about the Patriots and respond the same way.  What the h-e-double-hockey sticks does it matter to me that one day Tom Brady will retire ... bringing it up seems like sour grapes. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    When you referred to the NC game as a formality, claimed that college football in the last 35 years has become distinctly southern and argued that Florida and Georgia's potential reemergence will only make a continued run by the SEC more likely I took you at your word.  Perhaps I misunderstood.

    As for your comments about jealous fans there is an important distinction to make.  Some people use historical examples to try and take away from what a team or teams have accomplished (i.e. fans who try to invalidate the Patriots success because they hadn't won a Super Bowl before TB and BB).  That was not what I was doing.  I was simply pointing out that history suggests that a sustained run out into future seasons like you were describing might not be as clear cut as you were making it sound.  I was not denying the SEC's recent success or that it somehow doesn't matter because of what transpired 50 years ago.  You don't seem to think you were making that kind of point, but that was how I read your previous comments.

    I have no idea what your Tom Brady retirement comment is in response to.  I assume it is to my comment about how quickly a teams fortunes can change in the NCAA.  Considering how much more turnover there is on an NCAA roster than an NFL roster (particularly with regards to star players) I don't see how that comment was inappropriate.

    Honestly I don't really feel like debating this anymore since there is a lot we do agree on (the Patriots, LSU as the current NC favorite, the call that this thread was originally about) and our point of disagreement really isn't that big of a deal.



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    My Criteria haven't changed, my criteria is how has the SEC fared in bowl games.  The past 2 years I think they are 2 games over .500.  You are the one who points to "unfair" matchups and calls 6th place ACC teams 3rd place ACC teams.

    I like your graph, but it doesn't change the fact that the top 8 Big Ten teams are .500 against the SEC in the past 12 years of bowl games.  The MWC and Big East actually have a better winning % to the SEC, and the Pac 10 boasts some impressive numbers as well.

    How is it "curious" that the SEC keeps winning "national titles"?  On June 1st the BCS championship game is SEC 1 vs ______.  When you get a bye into the championship, you have a %50 chance of winning.  It is not like Bama or Auburn ran away with either of the last 2 title games but it is unthinkable to suggest to an SEC fan that if they actually had to play 3 play-off games someone might knock them off.

    I have illuminated you.  I don't think any conference really has a "tougher" schedule than the rest.  As shown by the fact that a team like Pittsburgh beat Kentucky by 2 TD's more than eventual national champion Auburn.  Auburn played 2 real teams outside the SEC last year, they beat Clemson 27-24 OT at home and beat Oregon 22-19.  Sorry, nothing about that screams dominating.

    I said from the get go, that at the top (LSU, Bama) the SEC is the best conference but the notion that it is any more of "grind" than any other conference is baseless.  Bama had a much tougher time with Penn St., maybe the 4th-6th best team in the big ten than they've had with anyone on the conference schedule.  Who else is part of this grind that is unfound in other conferences? 

    KSU plays its next four games against OU, OSU, A&M, UT.   4 ranked opponents. After Michigan St. plays @ Nebraska they will have played 4 straight ranked Big Ten teams.  Every conference has tough schedules.

     
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]Top 5 to my untrained eyes: SEC Big 12 Big 10 Pac 10 ACC Not that it matters.....
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Ironically USNews ranks the BSC conferences in the exact opposite order academically.

    1. ACC
    2. Pac 10
    3. Big 10
    4. Big 12
    5. SEC

    I'm sure there is no correlation between reduced academic standards and football success.  Just ask Vanderbilt, Duke or Northwestern.  Or Stanford once Andrew Luck leaves.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]My Criteria haven't changed, my criteria is how has the SEC fared in bowl games.  The past 2 years I think they are 2 games over .500.  You are the one who points to "unfair" matchups and calls 6th place ACC teams 3rd place ACC teams. I like your graph, but it doesn't change the fact that the top 8 Big Ten teams are .500 against the SEC in the past 12 years of bowl games.  The MWC and Big East actually have a better winning % to the SEC, and the Pac 10 boasts some impressive numbers as well. How is it "curious" that the SEC keeps winning "national titles"?  On June 1st the BCS championship game is SEC 1 vs ______.  When you get a bye into the championship, you have a %50 chance of winning.  It is not like Bama or Auburn ran away with either of the last 2 title games but it is unthinkable to suggest to an SEC fan that if they actually had to play 3 play-off games someone might knock them off. I have illuminated you.  I don't think any conference really has a "tougher" schedule than the rest.  As shown by the fact that a team like Pittsburgh beat Kentucky by 2 TD's more than eventual national champion Auburn.  Auburn played 2 real teams outside the SEC last year, they beat Clemson 27-24 OT at home and beat Oregon 22-19.  Sorry, nothing about that screams dominating. I said from the get go, that at the top (LSU, Bama) the SEC is the best conference but the notion that it is any more of "grind" than any other conference is baseless.  Bama had a much tougher time with Penn St., maybe the 4th-6th best team in the big ten than they've had with anyone on the conference schedule.  Who else is part of this grind that is unfound in other conferences?  KSU plays its next four games against OU, OSU, A&M, UT.   4 ranked opponents. After Michigan St. plays @ Nebraska they will have played 4 straight ranked Big Ten teams.  Every conference has tough schedules.  
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    And yet they keep winning. Curious again. A 50/50 crapshoot, like you are saying it is, would suggest that one of the BIG-10 teams they faced in that span would have a 50/50 chance of knocking them off? 

    Funny how the coin keeps coming up heads ... isn't it?

    Your argument is full of hollow claims (claiming that everyone plays an equally tough schedule), and cherry-picked inconsequential evidence (singling out upsets like the Georgia game that are statistical anomalies), ignoring your own criterion once it is exposed (record in bowl games), and then most critically, backtracking and using the very ranking system you are decrying as false to support your hollow claims (the BIG10's 'ranked' schedule). 

    Every conference has tough schedules... the SEC has the toughest schedule. We know this because SEC teams beat teams outside of their conference more consistently than they lose to other teams outside of their conference, and most frequently are doing so against top-notch competition from other conferences, not winning gimme podunk, non-BCS bowls to fatten their record. Unless you would disagree and offer another conference as having a tougher schedule?

    I've backed my assertion that the SEC is the best major conference in bowl games. The BIG10 is overrated. You can't say that rankings are nonsensical then come back and talk about the 'ranked teams' on the BIG10 schedule making it tough. 

    If the rankings 'favored' the SEC the SEC wouldn't so consistently deliver. No go cherry pick random bowl games all you want. They don't really help your case. Here is the trend -- 2000-2010
    BOWLS  BCS Vs. RANKED
    BIG10 (77) 31-46 (.400) (19) 7-12 (.368) (43) 18-25 (.418)
    SEC 53-36 (.595) (17) 13-4 (.768) (55) 36-19 (.654)
         

    And the only other major conference that has a winning record vs ranked teams is the PAC-10 sporting a 18-16 (.529) record in that span. 

    The BIG EAST, losing, the ACC, losing, the BIG12, losing record ... only the MWC is close against ranked teams at 7-4 ... What do those stats tell you? That the SEC, having played the most games vs ranked opponents by far, and having played with the best record easily if you throw out the MWCs small sample ... have essentially dominated ranked teams from other conferences. 

    How does that data show you that the SEC just wins because they get gimme bowls?

    When the BIG10 is getting SERVED almost 60% of the time against ranked teams, in BCS games, AND in bowl games over all, and the SEC wins at a 600 clip in bowl games, .650 clip against ranked teams, and an astonishing .768 against BCS teams suggest the opposite. 

    They are in fact, ranked where they should be ranked, because they keep winning. Heck, if anything, those stats indicate the SEC is UNDERVALUED as a schedule, because their teams should be drawing tougher competition when they win 65% of the time ranked to ranked. 

    And before you go off about them being buoyed by their 'top', even without (and I don't know why I would bother doing this stat) the outrageous BCS winning percentage the SEC boasts, they are still 23-15 (.605) against ranked opponents in that span. 60% of the time their third and fourth and fifth best teams are winning against ranked compeition.  

    The SEC is undervalued. Once the .654 number comes down closer to .500, we'll know they are closer to being properly valued taking as a given that an accurate ranking system over the some hundreds of ranked contests would tend toward equlibirium, each conference hovering around .500 like the PAC10.

    As it stands right now ... the SEC is simply taking out the trash on the BIG10, 12, ACC, etc, and the MWC gets to embarras overvalued teams like Wisconsin last season.   

    Conferences like the BIG10 (who you are whining for in this thread) are essentially done much more favors by the ranking system than the SEC, who earn their ranking by consistently defeating ranked opponents, BCS opponents, bowl opponents, and ranked opponents. If anything, the fact that the BIG10 gets more shots than they actually deserve (surprise surprise) at BCS games and wins much less than the 'rankings' would predict, suggests that they are overvalued against the SEC. 

    The BIG10 don't play a tough schedule. They play a middle of the pack schedule, padded with teams that are ranked based on reputations from 50 years ago that don't match how they actually perform against other ranked teams over the large sample (not cherry picking one or two games like you do).

    Cherry-picking a game and asking why the 'dominant' SEC doesn't win it essentially ignores the overwhelming evidence of the SECs dominance in the NCAA based on actual samples. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    I'm surprised Florida St doesn't single handedly offset Duke, UNC, BC, Virginia and Wake Forest in the academic discussion lol
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    Personally I would start watching more college football if the following changes take place.

    1. Put in a playoff system
    2. Put a lid on conference expansion to 12 teams
    3. For schedules make everyone play every team in your conference and then your one (if your a 12 team conference) non-conference game if your a automatic BCS has to be against another BSC conference team.

    Until then I really don't pay much attention to it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    Which Georgia game is the "statistical anomoly". The one where they lost to Boise St?  Or the one where they lost to Central Florida?  Or the one where they lost to Colorado?  That is 3 in 2 years, opposite of "cherry picking".  To be fair they have beaten Georgia Tech, Coastal Carolina, Idaho St. and Louisana Lafayette during that stretch.  

    Again, you claim to want to talk about actual samples but ignore the actual samples that are provided, some that you've provided yourself.

    I don't disagree that the SEC is better than the Big 10 but you can't realistically claim a huge superiority when you look at the even results head to head in bowl games over the past decade+.   You said something about 'Elite teams don't lose games they shouldn't'  well use that rational on the list below.

    LSU- 2-2
    Arkansas-0-3
    Bama-1-2
    Miss St -1-0
    Auburn-3-2

    That is 7-9 for the SEC West (the one you said to focus on) against the Big Ten head to head in Bowl games since 2000.  Call it cherry picking, I'd say a decade of bowl games is about the best NCAA footballl has to offer us.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    What about Ole Miss winning their previous 4 bowl games all against Big 12 teams? 2 over OK St, 1 over Nebraska and 1 over Texas Tech. I'm too lazy to read the previous posts which I'm sure states this is strictly an SEC vs Big 10 comparison; however, I think that wins against 4 solid teams should not be discounted just because they play in a different conference
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending. : Ironically USNews ranks the BSC conferences in the exact opposite order academically. 1. ACC 2. Pac 10 3. Big 10 4. Big 12 5. SEC I'm sure there is no correlation between reduced academic standards and football success.  Just ask Vanderbilt, Duke or Northwestern.  Or Stanford once Andrew Luck leaves.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    LOL.

    Actually, it's ACC a huge margin, then the rest of the others are packed together.

    ACC
    BIG10
    PAC12
    BIG EAST
    SEC
    BIG12

    But, boo hoo. Now you are just crying.

    Look I'm sorry your Badgers coughed up a furball.

    But this thread began and finally digressed into a one man whine session that's really about the Wisconsin losing -- and that one man grasping for every single excuse outside of calling it a Wisconsin loss.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending. : LOL. Actually, it's ACC a huge margin, then the rest of the others are packed together. ACC BIG10 PAC12 BIG EAST SEC BIG12 But, boo hoo. Now you are just crying. Look I'm sorry your Badgers coughed up a furball. But this thread began and finally digressed into a one man whine session that's really about the Wisconsin losing -- and that one man grasping for every single excuse outside of calling it a Wisconsin loss.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    I'm not a Wisconsin fan, I just didn't like the call. I wouldn't have liked that call if it was any 2 teams.  I just got on the Big Ten argument because I've seen the data and I think it is hilarious that SEC people beat their chests so much because they beat Ohio State every year (except last year) but the reality is over the last decade the SEC loses to the Big Ten in bowl games 1/2 of the time. That is called a fact.

    And no it isn't the ACC by a huge margin, it is ACC, Pac 12 and Big 10 relatively close and then the Big 12 and SEC way behind.  Pac 12 has 5 schools in the top 50, ACC 7, Big Ten 6, SEC 1. 



     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]Which Georgia game is the "statistical anomoly". The one where they lost to Boise St?  Or the one where they lost to Central Florida?  Or the one where they lost to Colorado?  That is 3 in 2 years, opposite of "cherry picking".  To be fair they have beaten Georgia Tech, Coastal Carolina, Idaho St. and Louisana Lafayette during that stretch.   Again, you claim to want to talk about actual samples but ignore the actual samples that are provided, some that you've provided yourself. I don't disagree that the SEC is better than the Big 10 but you can't realistically claim a huge superiority when you look at the even results head to head in bowl games over the past decade+.   You said something about 'Elite teams don't lose games they shouldn't'  well use that rational on the list below. LSU- 2-2 Arkansas-0-3 Bama-1-2 Miss St -1-0 Auburn-3-2 That is 7-9 for the SEC West (the one you said to focus on) against the Big Ten head to head in Bowl games since 2000.  Call it cherry picking, I'd say a decade of bowl games is about the best NCAA footballl has to offer us.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    I said LAST season (the last two really) the EAST has dropped off, so cherry picking one loss and building SC up like they were actually in the same class as Auburn, Bama, LSU and Arkansas, was disengenuous. The sad part is that you know that ... but you are trying to protect a lost argument. The decline of Florida is an easy reason to write off the East's 10-6 record against the BIG-10. Oh, and it helps you deliver another deli-sliced stat. 

    Now, given that Bama is 1-1 against the BIG-10 in the last ten years ...not 12 which was a nice little extension you gave yourself there. The SEC WEST is 7-8 against the BIG 10. Also, you leave out recent addition Nebraska, who I'm sure you would cite if it helped you. As they are currently part of the world beating BIG-10 schedule, we can throw them in as well.

    19-14. (.575) 

    And I would venture to guess that if you whittled that down to ranked v ranked it would probably increase the odds. 

    And yeah, I would call that 'that much better' than the BIG10. Especially when you add in the spread, where most of those BIG10 wins were by short points, while the SEC tends to blow the BIG10 when they win, and the quality of opponents facing each other where the SEC is 5-1 in BCS games in that span vs the BIG10. 

    The BIG 10 is a middle of the pack conference. That is all. There is a difference. And an SEC schedule is CERTAINLY harder. If it weren't and their rankings were inflated ...they would not be winning so often in the postseason.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending. : I'm not a Wisconsin fan, I just didn't like the call. I wouldn't have liked that call if it was any 2 teams.  I just got on the Big Ten argument because I've seen the data and I think it is hilarious that SEC people beat their chests so much because they beat Ohio State every year (except last year) but the reality is over the last decade the SEC loses to the Big Ten in bowl games 1/2 of the time. That is called a fact. And no it isn't the ACC by a huge margin, it is ACC, Pac 12 and Big 10 relatively close and then the Big 12 and SEC way behind.  Pac 12 has 5 schools in the top 50, ACC 7, Big Ten 6, SEC 1. 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]


    U.S. News average rank on Bleacher Report disagrees. The "average" ranking of each conference is really clustered together between 78-100 wth the ACC up in the 40's somewhere. 

    Furthermore, as someone involved in education there is a huge amount of perspective needed there AGAIN. 

    The difference between 75 and 100 is absolutely nominal in quality and standards. 

    Heck the difference between 50 and 200 is nominal. There are almost 4200 colleges in the United States.... being ranked in the top 250 puts you about in the top 5th percentile. None of these schools are 'bad' schools by any stretch of the imagination. 

    The majority of the difference between these teams is how attractive the football program is to someone looking for a chance at eventually playing professional football. 

    Wake Forest and Duke are fallbacks because no on watches them, they are small programs, and aren't a priority at their university. 

    Teams like Texas (who rank quite high on U.S. News) still recruit well because their program is dedicated to winning. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]What about Ole Miss winning their previous 4 bowl games all against Big 12 teams? 2 over OK St, 1 over Nebraska and 1 over Texas Tech. I'm too lazy to read the previous posts which I'm sure states this is strictly an SEC vs Big 10 comparison; however, I think that wins against 4 solid teams should not be discounted just because they play in a different conference
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33[/QUOTE]

    Of course. 

    The SEC is the best conference. However, if you are a person who feels spurned, or that your team was cheated, by the BCS rankings, you'll doubt it and imagine that they are 'gifted' bowl games. 

    The fact that the highest ranked teams keep winning the bowl games indicates that the BCS is a LOT closer than most people here are saying.

    Additionally, I wouldn't even be against a playoff, so long as it was based on a ranking system first and not some arbitrary seeding based on who wins their conference. A three round playoff with LSU and Bama in it this season would almost undoubtably produce the same result that the BCS will . .. an SEC champion. 

    The part that would be better is that the loser of the November matchupo would have a chance to play the other team in a rematch, which would ACTUALLY be a real national championship. 

    At least it would be better than feeding the SEC another sacrifical lamb. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    I didn't extend for 1 game, I said decade+ and used 1999 as the cutoff for all teams.  No, I woulnd't have included Nebraska if it helped, just like I didn't bag on Arkansas too much for their horrific bowl history because they used to be in the Southwest conference.

    I didn't use the SEC East Vs. the Big 10 because you told me the west is the best.  I checked Georgia and they were perfect against the Big Ten, apparently CFU isn't a big 10 team, Florida was actually below .500.  Again, anyway you chop up the data, the SEC and Big Ten have split bowl games for the past decade+.

    Sure there are 3,000 schools in America, but we're pretty much talking large state schools here when we're talking SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12.  The ACC has BC, Duke, Wake, so it makes sense they score the best.  Vanderbilt, NW, and Stanford sort of cancel each-other out but after that the Big 10 and Pac 12 schools rate much better than SEC and Big 12.  I don't think anyone would say it is easier to recruit kids to the Big 10 than it is to the SEC or Pac 10.  Some of it is as simple as weather.  Los Angeles vs. Lincoln, Nebraska? Baton Rouge or East Lansing? I think the academic standards at UM, PSU, UW, are tougher but I'm sure most programs will cut corners for the right player.  Ivy league schools do it for Hockey players, but there cutting corners is still pretty tough.  That is what is so impressive about what Stanford does in not just football but all athletics. 

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/spp%2B50/page+1
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]NCAAF is the only competitive sport on the planet where the regular season pretty much means nothing (other than the traditional rivalry game on the schedule), where there is no semblance of a playoff. Even the tiddlywinks league in rural Indiana has a playoff. Here's another annoying thing about college football: They play 12 game seasons and there are at least 3 games (25% of games) on the schedule which are arranged cupcake wins for a juggernaut program, so there are really one 9 competitive games on the schedule. PATHETIC
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]


    totally concurr with all of that.
    totally true.
    sucks the $ in the pockets of people who get 100,000 salaries at these different bowl games for doing no work, just having a title. therefore because they would potentially lose these 100,00 perks if ncaafb were to go to a playoff.


    ive discussed these points at length elsewhere (usually on draft thread since thats the only place i see college football mentioned),  including the ridiculous disparity of schedule combined with not enough weighting on strength of schedule for bcs ranking combined with no playoff, making for a ridiculous "championship" that rewards teams who play in a weak conference/or no conference, and play cupcakes out of conference, ie teams that play the weakest schedule have the best chance to go to the championship. this motivates teams to stay in or to join weaker, (but viable) conferences.

    which is why any team in a conference that has viability (and $), would not want to go to the sec, because it would likely reduce their chances of winning a champinship say over 5 or 10 years by up to as much as %300 (or 3 times harder),  (see texas, oaklahoma, who most often only have to focus on winning their game to have a shot at a championship game).

    to those upset wiht sec comments in thisd thread, if you think there is no difference in conference go ask the fans of any team, (especially the big 12 where this was needed to be considered in "the real world as the big 12 contemplated dissolving with everyone leaving) which conference they would want heir team to go to if their conference dissolved (or for whatever reason they had to leave). many bloggers and fans on the big 12 boards (ie oaklahoma, texas and other fans)  actually said this aloud (and many of them live and breathe college football more than any other sport.

    the reason i (and i think many other sec fans) may discuss the disparity of strength in the sec vs other conferances is because it is unfair in a league without a playoff, where bcs rankings mostly concern themself with # of wins, 
    that teams who play in a league with incredible schedule that no team in the other conferences has to play. therefore the road to the championship is that much harder just for being in the conference (so the chances of winning a championship every year might be %100 (2 times as hard) to %300 harder than teams in another conference.




     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending. : Even if I acknowledged that claim the SEC is not the only conference in the South. What is your evidence for this assertion?  Considering how quickly things can change at a program because of the NCAA, recruiting, a coaching change, injuries or players leaving either because of graduation or the draft I don't see how you can project into the future so confidently. I don't know why you keep projecting Michigan fandom onto me.  Where have I said I was a Michigan fan. I guess you forgot to tell the Giants that Super Bowl 42 was a formality. I grew up in Rhode Island which isn't exactly a big college football town.  I went to a division 3 school with no football team.  I like college football  because I like football.  Amusingly your response here is similar to any other SEC fan when you try and discuss college football.  The second I don't admit that SEC football is far and away better than everyone else and has been always and will be forever more it means that I am a jealous fan from another conference.  Spare me.  I am the first to acknowledge that the SEC deserves props for their recent accomplishments, but I find it obnoxious that their fans think that this means that I should accept every year before the next season has even started that the SEC is better than everyone else and that the national championship is a formality and that all the teams from other conferences suck because they don't play in the almighty SEC.  They play the games for a reason.
    Posted by 423206852231dc13f5b2e36577a3bcfa[/QUOTE]

    423,

    re:
     "I am the first to acknowledge that the SEC deserves props for their recent accomplishments, but I find it obnoxious that their fans think that this means that I should accept every year before the next season has even started that the SEC is better than everyone else and that the national championship is a formality and that all the teams from other conferences suck because they don't play in the almighty SEC.  They play the games for a reason."

     i dont think anyone is saying that

    and especially not this:
    ational championship is a formality and that all the teams from other conferences suck because they don't play in the almighty SEC

    however if you read my post above this, this is what i and many others feel and are saying. college football championship series is an incredibly unfairly weighted system, where teams in the sec have the worst chance to make the championship because of the week in and week out schedule (which many fans of teams in other conferences only consider if they were to have to choose to move to another conference, which would you most want to got to and which would you least want to go to (regardless of distance). ie do you want to decrease you chance at a championship every year or increase your chance at a championship every year).

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending. : Of course.  The SEC is the best conference. However, if you are a person who feels spurned, or that your team was cheated, by the BCS rankings, you'll doubt it and imagine that they are 'gifted' bowl games.  The fact that the highest ranked teams keep winning the bowl games indicates that the BCS is a LOT closer than most people here are saying. Additionally, I wouldn't even be against a playoff, so long as it was based on a ranking system first and not some arbitrary seeding based on who wins their conference. A three round playoff with LSU and Bama in it this season would almost undoubtably produce the same result that the BCS will . .. an SEC champion.  The part that would be better is that the loser of the November matchupo would have a chance to play the other team in a rematch, which would ACTUALLY be a real national championship.  At least it would be better than feeding the SEC another sacrifical lamb. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    "November matchupo would have a chance to play the other team in a rematch, which would ACTUALLY be a real national championship. 

    At least it would be better than feeding the SEC another sacrifical lamb."


    strong statements...,

     and pretty much stands up this year. i think bama and lsu are by far the best teams  not by how they would perform just in one bowl game, but game in game out all year. 

    though the championship game wont have the best 2 teams in it because at least one of these teams will have to have at least one loss, if not more, due to playing sec every weak and due  to playing the other team.

    and over the last several years the #2 of the sec would likelyhave won or competed evenly with the other team that faced the #1 sec team in the championship game (ie the #2 ranked team).

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichFan. Show MichFan's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    I never saw a replay that showed the ball crossed the goal line.  Perhaps the replay official saw something we didn't see.  Since the play on the field was ruled no TD then i didn't see enough to overturn it.  Other than the fact the officials had to find a way off the field in E.Lansing had they ruled no TD and the sparties lost.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    Cripes! More BCS bashing. OK, we'll play it your way.

    Let's have an 8 team "playoff". Here are some BIG problems that can't be avoided (can you say "controversy"?) :

    1) Name the 8 teams then tell the next two, "Sorry, but you weren't good enough.."

    2) Now that you have 8 teams, try and seed them with NO TEAM feeling slighted. (Now, tell me that your 1 loss team will be just overjoyed playing a #1 LSU in the Sugar Bowl. No home field advantage there, right?) Do you think that a tream COULD tank it in a late season game to conceptionally drop from, say #2 to #5 to get a better game matchup? NAW!!!

    3) What criteria are you going to use to seed the teams? Remember, using any human poll just muddies the waters (favorites, regional slant, the typical "They never say Northwest Central State play!"). Pure computer generated numbers? (Again, see the whine re: Northwest Central State). New whine added: What about those intangibles?

    4) (My personal favorite) AFTER the 4 playoff games are played and eh winners advance, how do you seed them? By virtue of their win and their seeding for game #1? Let's speculate that #1 beats #8 by 4 points on a TD scored with 3 seconds left. Do they keep their #1 seed? Then there's the #4 vs #5 tussel, with two apparent evenly matched teams going head-to-head. Say the #5 team crushes the #4 team. Re-seed them? Let's bring in that nasty "human element" again.

    The BSC came about to match the two best teams in the country at the end of the season. It's all a money grab for the NCAA. As long as the math worked out so a 1 loss team could qualify, what's the big stink? Maybe 3 or 4 undefeated teams mucks things up? Ah! Then let's get "human", and determine that a 12-0 Boise State or TCU doesn't get a shot at the BSC Championship, because their schedules aren't as difficult as a 1 loss Oklahoma. (Then, why don't more of the Big Boys schedule them?) Then, explain why an undefeated Auburn (they of the Southeast Conference, the acknowledged BEST conference in the entire Universe) gets to watch the game because they didn't beat up Alabama or LSU significantly when they went head-to-head.

    The BSC and any conceivable playoff need to go the way of dinosaurs. As long as there is going to be a human element involved, let's go back to the end of season polls. Let Midwest Northern State claim that they are WAY better than Eastern South Dakota U. WHO CARES? Will this change my life? Would I still watch the bowl games? Only the schools and alumni really give a rat's posterior. (UConn in a BSC game???? REALLY????)

    "Out of order came chaos! And they will waffle on how good it is!

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.:
    [QUOTE]Cripes! More BCS bashing. OK, we'll play it your way. Let's have an 8 team "playoff". Here are some BIG problems that can't be avoided (can you say "controversy"?) : 1) Name the 8 teams then tell the next two, "Sorry, but you weren't good enough.." 2) Now that you have 8 teams, try and seed them with NO TEAM feeling slighted. (Now, tell me that your 1 loss team will be just overjoyed playing a #1 LSU in the Sugar Bowl. No home field advantage there, right?) Do you think that a tream COULD tank it in a late season game to conceptionally drop from, say #2 to #5 to get a better game matchup? NAW!!! 3) What criteria are you going to use to seed the teams? Remember, using any human poll just muddies the waters (favorites, regional slant, the typical "They never say Northwest Central State play!"). Pure computer generated numbers? (Again, see the whine re: Northwest Central State). New whine added: What about those intangibles? 4) (My personal favorite) AFTER the 4 playoff games are played and eh winners advance, how do you seed them? By virtue of their win and their seeding for game #1? Let's speculate that #1 beats #8 by 4 points on a TD scored with 3 seconds left. Do they keep their #1 seed? Then there's the #4 vs #5 tussel, with two apparent evenly matched teams going head-to-head. Say the #5 team crushes the #4 team. Re-seed them? Let's bring in that nasty "human element" again. The BSC came about to match the two best teams in the country at the end of the season. It's all a money grab for the NCAA. As long as the math worked out so a 1 loss team could qualify, what's the big stink? Maybe 3 or 4 undefeated teams mucks things up? Ah! Then let's get "human", and determine that a 12-0 Boise State or TCU doesn't get a shot at the BSC Championship, because their schedules aren't as difficult as a 1 loss Oklahoma. (Then, why don't more of the Big Boys schedule them?) Then, explain why an undefeated Auburn (they of the Southeast Conference, the acknowledged BEST conference in the entire Universe) gets to watch the game because they didn't beat up Alabama or LSU significantly when they went head-to-head. The BSC and any conceivable playoff need to go the way of dinosaurs. As long as there is going to be a human element involved, let's go back to the end of season polls. Let Midwest Northern State claim that they are WAY better than Eastern South Dakota U. WHO CARES? Will this change my life? Would I still watch the bowl games? Only the schools and alumni really give a rat's posterior. (UConn in a BSC game???? REALLY????) "Out of order came chaos! And they will waffle on how good it is!
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    I don't really see those things as problems. Most reasonable people would probably agree that a BCS system is necessary to determine college rankings since there are so many teams playing, with such a large difference in competition level. The problem as I see it is that everyone wants to know who's number one, who's the best team. The ranking system is as good as you could expect for predicting how 2 teams who haven't played each other will fare. But the difference between who's number one or two or three, it's a guess- no system is that precise. Should an undefeated team be 1st, or 3rd or 4th? You look at NCAA basketball and there are still teams who are upset about not getting in the tournament but nobody cares because whether your the 64th or 65th best team your not arguing about number one, and they really didn't have much of a chance. An 8 game playoff just moves the controversy from who's number one and two, to who's number eight and nine. And since almost nobody cares about being the 8th best team, there will be far less controversy. I think the simple solution is you seed 8 teams based on BCS rankings, those rankings continue throughout the playoffs and the final game is on a neutral field. I don't think teams will throw games any more than NFL teams do to get better match ups. The rankings are too unpredictable to take that risk, and they are playing to be the best anyway so eventually you have to beat the best. I'd be willing to bet that the number one and number two ranked teams would not face each other in the championship every year and that is exactly the problem everyone has with the system now. But IMO its about money, they like their system and ultimately they're more interested in maximizing dollars than anything else.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.

    I've never been entirely sure why there is so much clamor for a playoff anyway. It's probably a generational thing, but I was weaned on bowl games that produced actual conference rivalries and even then, the "national championship" was largely mythical . . .  being the product of dubious "polling." Count me as one who doesn't want college football to be just like the NFL. To be sure, there's a lot more money involved nowadays and this idea that "the bowl games themselves get most of that" . . .   well, if you think the boosters aren't in bed with the promoters, I know of a very fine bridge for which I could get you a good price.

    All that said, we're already seeing the genesis of the super-conferences and once you get that, a 16-team tournament is a fait accompli.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share