College Football BCS talk

[BigDom]

WOW... Bo Schembechler just passed away... I can't believe it, just a couple of weeks ago he fell ill, but recovered... and now he's gone... the day before one of the biggest games in Michigan Football history... I am just so saddened by this, and my heart goes out to his family and friends...

RIP Bo

[brutushayesosu]

As a Buckeye, I am saddened to hear this news. I heard he collapsed earlier but just got home to see it on ESPN. Now he and Woody are up there going back and forth on who is going to win. I just hope that tomarrow before the game that OSU pays their respects with a moment of respect and that the drunks that are their will not do or say anything that is inappropriate.

Night before the game (live webcam of The Shoe)

http://www.buckeyextra.com/?story=dispatch...ms/stadium.html

I will be going to bed early tonight because Im going to be getting up at 5:30am to hit the bars for Kegs and Eggs. Also, to find a parking spot which is kinda like Wrigley but 100 times worse. Enjoy the game everyone.

[kgbaseball]

Well Rutgers is finally out of the picture. I'm kind of surprised they played so badly, but I thought they would lose to West Virginia coming up if they were still undefeated anyways.

I can't wait for the new polls to come out on Sunday; a lot of it still depends on the USC game.

[Timp]

1. Ohio St.

2. USC

3. Michigan

I figured USC would move above Michigan at one point or another and get into the national championship game, I just don't like it. Michigan barely lost to the #1 team while USC just plain lost to a not-so-good team. It goes to show for the BCS if you're going to lose, you better lose early.

[sfgiantsflgators]

1. Ohio St.

2. USC

3. Michigan

I figured USC would move above Michigan at one point or another and get into the national championship game, I just don't like it. Michigan barely lost to the #1 team while USC just plain lost to a not-so-good team. It goes to show for the BCS if you're going to lose, you better lose early.

I think USC should be in the title game before Michigan due to the fact that they won their conference. I don't support the idea of not winning your conference but getting the chance to win the national championship.

Secondly, I think it's bullshit that people list three teams when this discussion comes up. Florida is 11-1, and if they beat Arkansas they will be 12-1. Yet they don't deserve it because they didn't do it with "flair?"

Florida beat Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida State, and maybe Arkansas. Their one loss came on the road at Auburn. But they are tossed aside because they didn't win "with style." I thought the point of going through a season, and attempting to win a championship in your particular field, was to win games - and Florida has done just that with the same regularity of Michigan and USC...and against the same, if not tougher, competition.

This is moot if Florida loses to Arkansas - but if they win the SEC and finish the season 12-1, it will be a travesty that the BCS will just give them a consolation bowl and a **** you.

[JoeyMcM93]

Flair, nice word sfgiantsflgators. I think USC should be in the title game as well. They won their conference, Michigan didn't, its that simple.

[Timp]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

Whatever philosophy one believes in is gooing to dictate who they believe should play in the nat'l championship game for this year, and pretty much every year.

[kgbaseball]

I can see both sides of the "who should Ohio State play" argument, but I want Michigan to play them rather than USC. Michigan's only loss was to OSU by 3 on the road to the #1 team in the country, while USC lost to the other OSU, Oregon State. Another reason is that Michigan destroyed Notre Dame earlier this year. I know USC beat them last night, but it doesn't make their win impressive enough to move Michigan out of the picture, in my opinion.

[sfgiantsflgators]

I can see both sides of the "who should Ohio State play" argument, but I want Michigan to play them rather than USC. Michigan's only loss was to OSU by 3 on the road to the #1 team in the country, while USC lost to the other OSU, Oregon State. Another reason is that Michigan destroyed Notre Dame earlier this year. I know USC beat them last night, but it doesn't make their win impressive enough to move Michigan out of the picture, in my opinion.

But what happens if Michigan beats Ohio State in the championship game? Then you're going to have a #1 team that finished #2 in their conference - and a #2 team that won their conference, but lost the title to a team from their conference. Not to mention, in the span of two games the series will be 1-1.

In a playoff system, that can be worked out (i.e. wild card in NFL and MLB). But in a system that tries to determine who the best overall team is, you can't award points for second place. You get one shot - and Michigan lost their shot by a field goal. It's time for the next in line to step up.

[kgbaseball]

I agree, there should be a playoff system, but why not give Michigan another shot? You could argue that they deserve one over USC, who lost to the undeniably worse OSU.

[sfgiantsflgators]

I agree, there should be a playoff system, but why not give Michigan another shot? You could argue that they deserve one over USC, who lost to the undeniably worse OSU.

That's my point - I don't think you can argue it. They didn't win their conference, so they shouldn't be put in a position to win the national championship over teams with identical records that are champions of BCS conferences.

If USC and Florida both win next weekend, Michigan should be fourth.

The only way Michigan should be able to play in the national title game is for BOTH USC and Florida to lose Saturday, giving Michigan the better record. If both teams lost, then yes, Michigan would be a logical choice. Anything else is bullshit.

[Cash #25]

But what happens if Michigan beats Ohio State in the championship game? Then you're going to have a #1 team that finished #2 in their conference - and a #2 team that won their conference, but lost the title to a team from their conference. Not to mention, in the span of two games the series will be 1-1.

How is this any different than what they do in NCAA basketball? Example 1985, Georgetown beats Villanova twice in the regular season and wins the Big East. Villanova beats Georgetown in the NCAA Final, Villanova champions. What does conference standings have to do with it?

[kinghernandez]

This west coast bias keeps pissing me off. If USC beating Notre Dame is the kicker, how is their 20 point home win any more impressive than Michigan's 26 point road win. Michigan should be given another chance. Don't give me any confrence bull, it should be #1 vs. #2 period. It doesn't matter because USC is gonna lose to UCLA anyway. That's what I keep telling myself.

[jhath]

so much for nd's title hopes.. :(

[ronmexico]

I agree, there should be a playoff system, but why not give Michigan another shot? You could argue that they deserve one over USC, who lost to the undeniably worse OSU.

I don't wanna see another Ohio St. v Michigan game, because if you do that, aren't you just saying, the first meeting was meaningless?

so much for nd's title hopes..

And, same here Darn, well we can get some BCS bowl still.

Maybe we can get something like the tostitosinsite.com/some random crap bowl :)

[kgbaseball]

I don't think it would be meaningless. Consider this (hopefully I can keep this all straight):

-Michigan beats OSU

-Michigan most likely plays for national championship

-Because Michigan won, ND would get a better bowl, since you can't fault them for losing to the new #1 team in the country

-Would USC move ahead of OSU, now that both teams have 1 loss?

As you can see, a host of different things could've happened if Michigan won, so no, it wasn't meaningless if they play again.

[ronmexico]

I don't think it would be meaningless. Consider this (hopefully I can keep this all straight):

-Michigan beats OSU

-Michigan most likely plays for national championship

-Because Michigan won, ND would get a better bowl, since you can't fault them for losing to the new #1 team in the country

-Would USC move ahead of OSU, now that both teams have 1 loss?

As you can see, a host of different things could've happened if Michigan won, so no, it wasn't meaningless if they play again.

I don't think that this meeting would be meaningless, but it kinda nullifies the 1st matchup that they had. I think USC should get the nod on this one (no matter how much I despise them) because Michigan has shown what it has done v OSU, and they shouldn't get a 2nd chance while another team doesn't get any shot at 'em.

[kinghernandez]

If Michigan won the game no one would be saying OSU doesn't deserve another chance. I could understand if they were blown out but was it not a close game?

[sfgiantsflgators]

How is this any different than what they do in NCAA basketball? Example 1985, Georgetown beats Villanova twice in the regular season and wins the Big East. Villanova beats Georgetown in the NCAA Final, Villanova champions. What does conference standings have to do with it?

I see it as this: in the basketball system, and the major sports, the regular season is designed to find out who belongs in the playoffs. Those teams are determined, then the season starts over at the beginning of the first playoff week.

In the BCS, the top teams aren't determined by any set formula. Everyone plays different schedules that they design themselves, then a computer decides who the best is. If you aren't going to put a set number of teams into a tournament and have them fight it out to decide who the best team is, you at least have to have some sort of parameters to determine what teams are the best. And one of those factors should depend on how they did against the competition in their conference. If they aren't the best in their conference, how are you going to assume they are the best in the world?

If Michigan won the game no one would be saying OSU doesn't deserve another chance. I could understand if they were blown out but was it not a close game?

I would - because they lost their conference. Why have different conferences, especially the major ones, if winning them means ****?

[Cash #25]

I can't buy that rationale. If conference results are so important, where would that place Notre Dame and the other independents? All the conference schools have to win their championship while the independents go their merry way into a BCS game?

The BCS Championship game is supposed to pit the two best teams in the nation. Conference standings have nothing to do with that. I'll take you one step further. Ohio State didn't even have to PLAY number seven Wisconsin in the Big Ten. The Badgers one loss came at the hands of, you guessed it, Michigan. So how can conference standings be of any use with convoluted scheduling like that? And.....who's to say Wisconsin wouldn't have pulled it off against the Buckeyes?

It's a done deal now anyway. USC has been voted in, provided they beat UCLA Saturday.

[kinghernandez]

I could understand that confrences matter if it was set up that way. Remember how bad the East was in the NBA forever. It seemed like it was always the #1 team vs. maybe the #5 team. But football is different, it is set up so #1 should be playing #2. Michigan is far better than USC in my mind.

[sfgiantsflgators]

I can't buy that rationale. If conference results are so important, where would that place Notre Dame and the other independents? All the conference schools have to win their championship while the independents go their merry way into a BCS game?

The BCS Championship game is supposed to pit the two best teams in the nation. Conference standings have nothing to do with that. I'll take you one step further. Ohio State didn't even have to PLAY number seven Wisconsin in the Big Ten. The Badgers one loss came at the hands of, you guessed it, Michigan. So how can conference standings be of any use with convoluted scheduling like that? And.....who's to say Wisconsin wouldn't have pulled it off against the Buckeyes?

It's a done deal now anyway. USC has been voted in, provided they beat UCLA Saturday.

Notre Dame chooses to be indepedent. They have been invited to join conferences before, but it didn't benefit them financially, so they declined. If it ever did come down to conference play being a factor, it would be on Notre Dame to step up.

As for the Big Ten, and conference schedules in general, I'm not saying that they have them set up correctly. What I am saying is that the conferences that have championship games should have that taken into consideration with regards to the BCS. Florida's schedule was just as tough, if not tougher, than the other teams in this discussion. But now they have to play an extra game that Michigan doesn't have to. They should get credit for that instead of being written off so quickly.

I'm not arguing about USC - if they beat UCLA, then they have a legitimate case for a title game birth. But if they lose and Florida beats Arkansas, Florida should be in before Michigan due to their extra victory and conference title. If the Big Ten, or any other conference, thinks that is unfair, add a conference championship game. Then if OSU and Michigan split their two games, there's a legitimate grip for a rematch in the BCS game. Otherwise, the winner of their regular season matchup should be crowned the best and another team can move up.

Final point: you guys keep saying "in my mind." That is my biggest gripe with this system. A vote shouldn't be taken to see who the "best" is...games should decide that. I can compromise when it comes to selecting the top 5-10 teams that should be considered - but when it comes down to choosing the two "most deserving," human minds shouldn't be anywhere near the process.

[kinghernandez]

I can't take anything you said about Florida into consideration because you are clearly biased towards them. I can't blame you, everyone wants their team to be in the championship, but your facts are selectively chosen. An extra game doesn't matter because teams schedule for themselves. They didn't have to play it. Schedule a bye, talk to USC about how to do it. Plus, I really think Arkansas will take care of business pretty easily. Just because people don't want to see a rematch isn't a reason for the two best teams in the country to play again. I don't care if they are in the same confrence. Like when the Yankees and Red Sox were at the top of the league. They were in the same division and cleary the two best teams in the MLB.

[sfgiantsflgators]

I can't take anything you said about Florida into consideration because you are clearly biased towards them. I can't blame you, everyone wants their team to be in the championship, but your facts are selectively chosen. An extra game doesn't matter because teams schedule for themselves. They didn't have to play it. Schedule a bye, talk to USC about how to do it. Plus, I really think Arkansas will take care of business pretty easily. Just because people don't want to see a rematch isn't a reason for the two best teams in the country to play again. I don't care if they are in the same confrence. Like when the Yankees and Red Sox were at the top of the league. They were in the same division and cleary the two best teams in the MLB.

So, if my facts are selectively chosen, tell me the ones I left out. Am I biased towards Florida? Of course. But this is bigger than any committments towards a team - it's about one of, if not THE, worst system in all of sports. The BCS is a horrendously flawed way of chosing a national champion. I've said it since day one and I'll continue to say it.

As for teams scheduling their own games, that is only true about non-conference opponents. The in-conference matchups are determined by the conferences themselves. You think Florida chose to play Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia all in a row themselves, with just one bye week after the Auburn game? The SEC hand picked that schedule for them.

And the extra game doesn't matter? Does that mean if Florida was #2 right now, and they lost this weekend to Arkansas, that the game would be disregarded? No, it sure as hell wouldn't - they'd be out. So why shouldn't it count towards something if they win? You know as well as I do that if Florida beats Arkansas Saturday, nothing will happen because the voters are too enamoured with USC and Michigan. But if they were #2 and lost - it'd be over. It's a double standard against those conferences with championship games and should be corrected.

[kinghernandez]

Here's some facts you left out. They had a real close call against Tennesse early in the season. 21 to 20 I think. They lost to Auburn, who isn't bad, but they played Florida State, who is bad, to a close game last week. Plus Georgia, Vanderbilt, and South Carolina all played them within a touchdown. None of those teams are anything special. Michigan, besides their loss to the #1 team in the country, had only one game within a touchdown. They beat a good Wisconsin team, Slaughtered Notre Dame and shut down a very good Iowa team. Ball State gave them a run but Michigan put the starters back in and beat them by 8. The had a similar schedule to Florida, they played a lot of average teams, a few bad ones, and a few good ones. Michigan clearly has the better margin of victory.

I agree that the BCS is terrible but until somebody realizes that one person should schedule for everyone it is not going anywhere. And BCS-wise, Michigan is a better team.