Thread: NCAA football

Page 5 of 141 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
15
55
105
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by RollTide View Post
    So did I miss something? Last time I checked Michigan isn't even eligible for an at large bid. How can you argue if they deserve something they aren't even eligible for yet anyway?
    whoever loses the Big 10 Championship game will likely lose out on the BCS at large bid to a Michigan team that didn't even make it to the championship game. not only will Michigan not play Wisconsin (one of the top 2 teams in the big 10 this season), but MSU has to play them twice, going to be a very good game i think (MSU vs UW), bad thing though that the loser doesn't get a BCS bid.

  2. #82
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    214
    the BCS needs to go, now. it's so completely biased it's not funny anymore. an SEC team loses to another SEC team and they drop 2 positions; big "10" loses to big "10" and they drop a dozen spots. explain how that makes any fair, logical sense?
    22 miles of hard road
    33 years of tough luck
    44 skulls buried in the ground
    Crawling down through the muck
    Ah yeah...

  3. #83
    High Overlord Nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbadxampl View Post
    the BCS needs to go, now. it's so completely biased it's not funny anymore. an SEC team loses to another SEC team and they drop 2 positions; big "10" loses to big "10" and they drop a dozen spots. explain how that makes any fair, logical sense?
    well theoretically u drop farther if you are ranked and lose to an unranked team regardless of conference

  4. #84
    Warchief Byniri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Lansing, Michigan.
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbadxampl View Post
    the BCS needs to go, now. it's so completely biased it's not funny anymore. an SEC team loses to another SEC team and they drop 2 positions; big "10" loses to big "10" and they drop a dozen spots. explain how that makes any fair, logical sense?
    An Alabama-LSU championship rematch would be the death of the BCS.
    PEPE SILVA, PEPE SILVA

  5. #85
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Roll Tide! Richardson's Heisman.

    Hate on the SEC all you want. It will change nothing. Another SEC title year. Business as usual.

  6. #86
    UCLA Is getting man handled by USC. That's just sad, lol.

  7. #87
    High Overlord Nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Byniri View Post
    An Alabama-LSU championship rematch would be the death of the BCS.
    its happened before my friend but unfortunately the BCS survived it....jus sayin.....

  8. #88
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    13,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Nino View Post
    its happened before my friend but unfortunately the BCS survived it....jus sayin.....
    No, actually, it hasn't. The only time two teams have played each other once in the regular season and then again in the National Title game, was pre-BCS.

    I think it helps the BCS. You can argue if you want, but it's hard to deny that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the NCAA. IF they were to play each other in the BCS title game, technically, they got it right.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  9. #89
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendulous View Post
    No, actually, it hasn't. The only time two teams have played each other once in the regular season and then again in the National Title game, was pre-BCS.

    I think it helps the BCS. You can argue if you want, but it's hard to deny that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the NCAA. IF they were to play each other in the BCS title game, technically, they got it right.
    the bcs is broken either way. no reason at all that Michigan should get the B10 at large bid over wisconsin or MSU. broken system is broken.

  10. #90
    High Overlord Nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendulous View Post
    No, actually, it hasn't. The only time two teams have played each other once in the regular season and then again in the National Title game, was pre-BCS.

    I think it helps the BCS. You can argue if you want, but it's hard to deny that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the NCAA. IF they were to play each other in the BCS title game, technically, they got it right.
    ahh so Florida /Florida State was pre BCS ok thanx for clearing that up
    and as much as i dislike the BCS being a Bama fan it does seem its worked out in this instance if we get n that is

  11. #91
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    13,061
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    the bcs is broken either way. no reason at all that Michigan should get the B10 at large bid over wisconsin or MSU. broken system is broken.
    Oh, I'm not disagreeing. The BCS is beyond borked. But if they haven't fixed it by now, they probably won't.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  12. #92
    Epic! Sayl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Scrubbity Burrow
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    the bcs is broken either way. no reason at all that Michigan should get the B10 at large bid over wisconsin or MSU. broken system is broken.
    For the situation that's being discussed here, at-large considerations are given to eligible teams, not conferences. There is no "Big Ten at-large bid"; a Big Ten team with nine or more regular-season wins who finishes #14 or higher in the final BCS standings has achieved at-large eligibility.

    Given the current snapshot, it's unlikely even with future losses or upsets that the loser of the Big Ten Conference Championship Game can finish #14 or above in the final BCS standings and thus be eligible for an at-large bid. That's why some journalists are giving U-M attention in today's headlines, but they might not even reach that position anyway.

    The BCS, as retarded and broken as it is, has the primary task of determining a #1 and #2 to square off for the national championship, and then identifying automatic qualifiers. Beyond that, there is no "should", "deserve", or anything of the sort built into the system for the rest of the bowl selection process. Bowl committees book at-large teams based upon what match-up will net the highest ratings, sell the most tickets, and generate the most revenue. Eligible at-large teams get snubbed every year regardless of their merits. It's always been like that.

    From your posts though, it looks more like you're more pissed off about the possibility of Michigan getting an at-large bid than anything in the BCS or bowl selection process requiring revision. Just saying.

  13. #93
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Sayl View Post
    For the situation that's being discussed here, at-large considerations are given to eligible teams, not conferences. There is no "Big Ten at-large bid"; a Big Ten team with nine or more regular-season wins who finishes #14 or higher in the final BCS standings has achieved at-large eligibility.

    Given the current snapshot, it's unlikely even with future losses or upsets that the loser of the Big Ten Conference Championship Game can finish #14 or above in the final BCS standings and thus be eligible for an at-large bid. That's why some journalists are giving U-M attention in today's headlines, but they might not even reach that position anyway.

    The BCS, as retarded and broken as it is, has the primary task of determining a #1 and #2 to square off for the national championship, and then identifying automatic qualifiers. Beyond that, there is no "should", "deserve", or anything of the sort built into the system for the rest of the bowl selection process. Bowl committees book at-large teams based upon what match-up will net the highest ratings, sell the most tickets, and generate the most revenue. Eligible at-large teams get snubbed every year regardless of their merits. It's always been like that.

    From your posts though, it looks more like you're more pissed off about the possibility of Michigan getting an at-large bid than anything in the BCS or bowl selection process requiring revision. Just saying.
    partially correct, i am mad that a team who isn't going to the championship game (Michigan) has the destinct posibility of getting an at large bid, while whoever loses the championship game for the big 10 (MSU/Wisconsin) will not.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    partially correct, i am mad that a team who isn't going to the championship game (Michigan) has the destinct posibility of getting an at large bid, while whoever loses the championship game for the big 10 (MSU/Wisconsin) will not.
    Still, if any upsets get pulled in conference title games, it could really throw a wrench in at large bids. If UGA or Clemson(I'm assuming Vtech would still get an at large with a loss) were to win, they'd get an auto bid and take away one of those at large slots.

  15. #95
    Epic! Sayl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Scrubbity Burrow
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    partially correct, i am mad that a team who isn't going to the championship game (Michigan) has the destinct posibility of getting an at large bid, while whoever loses the championship game for the big 10 (MSU/Wisconsin) will not.
    That's an unfortunate side effect for the defeated. Teams who lose their CCGs generally don't receive at-large BCS bids.

    The only exceptions that come to mind (not counting the 2003 Oklahoma BCS abomination, of course):

    2008 Alabama
    Then-#1 Tide lose to #2 Florida in the SEC CCG. UF goes on to beat OU and win the NC.
    (12-1) 'Bama is then selected to play (AQ) Utah in the Sugar Bowl, and falls.

    2009 Florida
    Similar to the above, then-#1 Gators are upset by #2 'Bama in the SEC CCG. Tide go win the NC vs. Texas.
    (12-1) Gators are selected to play in the Sugar Bowl, and roflstomp Cincy.

    If anyone can think of other examples from the BCS era, I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).


    Long story short, it doesn't matter to bowl committees whether or not Michigan State or Wisconsin could beat Michigan now, or at any point during the regular season. Due to Sparty and Wisky being 10-2 going into it, the Big Ten CCG loser will end up with three losses, and at a time when they'll get ranked down lower than #14 in the final BCS standings, ruling out their eligibility for an at-large BCS spot. The only way either one of them could have avoided that was to either go undefeated, or only lose once during the regular season, preferably as early as possible so they could have regained maximum ground. I'm not saying it's somehow right that the system works that way -- it's just the way it is.

  16. #96
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by RollTide View Post
    Still, if any upsets get pulled in conference title games, it could really throw a wrench in at large bids. If UGA or Clemson(I'm assuming Vtech would still get an at large with a loss) were to win, they'd get an auto bid and take away one of those at large slots.
    my point still stands that the BCS is broken though, why should a team that only played 12 games, and never go to the Conference Championship at all be seeded over a team that proved its capable of at least making it to the championship game? Michigan does not deserve an at large bid, they played most there games at home, and didn't even have to face as strong a schedule as Wisconsin or MSU, who will both play 13 games, and one will walk away with a 10-3 record.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 02:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sayl View Post
    That's an unfortunate side effect for the defeated. Teams who lose their CCGs generally don't receive at-large BCS bids.

    The only exceptions that come to mind (not counting the 2003 Oklahoma BCS abomination, of course):

    2008 Alabama
    Then-#1 Tide lose to #2 Florida in the SEC CCG. UF goes on to beat OU and win the NC.
    (12-1) 'Bama is then selected to play (AQ) Utah in the Sugar Bowl, and falls.

    2009 Florida
    Similar to the above, then-#1 Gators are upset by #2 'Bama in the SEC CCG. Tide go win the NC vs. Texas.
    (12-1) Gators are selected to play in the Sugar Bowl, and roflstomp Cincy.

    If anyone can think of other examples from the BCS era, I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).


    Long story short, it doesn't matter to bowl committees whether or not Michigan State or Wisconsin could beat Michigan now, or at any point during the regular season. Due to Sparty and Wisky being 10-2 going into it, the Big Ten CCG loser will end up with three losses, and at a time when they'll get ranked down lower than #14 in the final BCS standings, ruling out their eligibility for an at-large BCS spot. The only way either one of them could have avoided that was to either go undefeated, or only lose once during the regular season, preferably as early as possible so they could have regained maximum ground. I'm not saying it's somehow right that the system works that way -- it's just the way it is.
    exactly why the BCS is broken, they need to have a playoff if you ask me.

  17. #97
    Epic! Sayl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Scrubbity Burrow
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    my point still stands that the BCS is broken though, why should a team that only played 12 games, and never go to the Conference Championship at all be seeded over a team that proved its capable of at least making it to the championship game?
    I don't think anyone with a pulse would dispute that the BCS is broken. Reading your posts, I just get the impression you're viewing one particular issue through green-and-white glasses.

    Neither the human voters nor computer rankings care that Team X played an "extra game", or made it to their conference's championship game. Team X gets rewarded for winning that game, or, penalized for losing that game. With or without the BCS, that's how these things work in any sport I can think of.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    Michigan does not deserve an at large bid, they played most there games at home, and didn't even have to face as strong a schedule as Wisconsin or MSU, who will both play 13 games, and one will walk away with a 10-3 record.
    As for number of home versus away games:
    U-M: 8 home, 4 away
    MSU: 7 home, 5 away
    UW: 7 home, 4 away, 1 neutral site

    I don't think U-M's one extra home game somehow poisons them or otherwise puts them in a different class. Given the option, most schools will choose the same home-heavy schedule. That's what pays the bills these days.

    As for strength of schedule, all the computer rankings I can find disagree with your assessment. Not that it matters much, you just haven't described how you've gotten that notion.

    Sagarin:
    U-M: 38
    MSU: 55
    UW: 64

    Anderson & Hester:
    U-M: 25
    MSU: 59
    UW:64

    Colley Matrix:
    U-M: 30
    MSU: 73
    UW: 77

    Massey:
    U-M: 37
    MSU: 38
    UW: 50

    Again, even if you reject the BCS system in its entirety, or the computer rankings that it uses, there's really no room for CCG losers to obtain at-large invitations unless there are particularly weird circumstances (like those I described earlier). Lastly, a 10-3 record isn't attractive enough to the bowl committees to merit an at-large invitation. It's just not borne out historically. And, as much as I'd love to see it, having a 16-team playoff wouldn't guarantee solutions for these lesser issues any better than what's in place now.

    The Big Ten Champ goes on to the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten CCG loser finishes 10-3 and still gets a decent non-BCS bowl date. If, somehow, the right combination of teams winning and losing sets Michigan up for an at-large bid, so be it. Everybody splits their revenue with the conference. I just don't see the big deal. Is there anything more to your argument than hating on the Wolverines?
    Last edited by Sayl; 2011-11-28 at 04:16 AM.

  18. #98
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Sayl View Post
    I don't think anyone with a pulse would dispute that the BCS is broken. Reading your posts, I just get the impression you're viewing one particular issue through green-and-white glasses.

    Neither the human voters nor computer rankings care that Team X played an "extra game", or made it to their conference's championship game. Team X gets rewarded for winning that game, or, penalized for losing that game. With or without the BCS, that's how these things work in any sport I can think of.



    As for number of home versus away games:
    U-M: 8 home, 4 away
    MSU: 7 home, 5 away
    UW: 7 home, 4 away, 1 neutral site

    I don't think U-M's one extra home game somehow poisons them or otherwise puts them in a different class. Given the option, most schools will choose the same home-heavy schedule. That's what pays the bills these days.

    As for strength of schedule, all the computer rankings I can find disagree with your assessment. Not that it matters much, you just haven't described how you've gotten that notion.

    Sagarin:
    U-M: 38
    MSU: 55
    UW: 64

    Anderson & Hester:
    U-M: 25
    MSU: 59
    UW:64

    Colley Matrix:
    U-M: 30
    MSU: 73
    UW: 77

    Massey:
    U-M: 37
    MSU: 38
    UW: 50

    Again, even if you reject the BCS system in its entirety, or the computer rankings that it uses, there's really no room for CCG losers to obtain at-large invitations unless there are particularly weird circumstances (like those I described earlier). Lastly, a 10-3 record isn't attractive enough to the bowl committees to merit an at-large invitation. It's just not borne out historically. And, as much as I'd love to see it, having a 16-team playoff wouldn't guarantee solutions for these lesser issues any better than what's in place now.

    The Big Ten Champ goes on to the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten CCG loser finishes 10-3 and still gets a decent non-BCS bowl date. If, somehow, the right combination of teams winning and losing sets Michigan up for an at-large bid, so be it. Everybody splits their revenue with the conference. I just don't see the big deal. Is there anything more to your argument than hating on the Wolverines?
    my point is its not right. say MSU loses to Wisconsin (Very much could happen), why should UofM get an at large bid over a CLEARLY superior MSU team that just happened to have the misfortune to play one extra game?
    as far as SoS goes, UofM didn't even have to play Wisconsin, who was considered a national title contender at the beginning of hte year and is considered one of the best teams (with MSU) in the big 10, how they warrant a higher SoS than MSU is beyond me, sans maybe a stronger schedule against the "weaker teams" but honestly i don't even consider those games because frankly, they are supposed to be pushovers. when i look at SoS i look at the hardest teams a team played, and frankly Michigan doesn't stack up, heck, outside of MSU, almost any team that had any sort of good record was played at home. yes, i am not a Wolverines fan at all, i will admit that, but it doesn't change the fact that both Wisconsin and MSU are clearly stronger teams, and one will have the misfortune of being knocked out of a BCS at large bid, while a decidely weaker team gets to float by on a free week and slide into an at large bid (possibly).

  19. #99
    Little bit of news. Rick Neuheisal officially out at UCLA. Lots of casualties this weekend. Half of em coming from the Pac 12.

  20. #100
    Fluffy Kitten conscript's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Jonesville, Michigan
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by RollTide View Post
    Little bit of news. Rick Neuheisal officially out at UCLA. Lots of casualties this weekend. Half of em coming from the Pac 12.
    All I have to say to that is finally.

    Marcellos, I wouldn't count on Michigan getting that at large bid so many people are talking about. A whole lot of chips have to fall the right way next week for that to even be a possibility. Michigan has to land at 14 or above which means two teams have to drop enough in the eyes of the voters for them to move up. Georgia is done for. They are at 14 now and playing LSU which should thoroughly annihilate that mediocre team. They should drop. That means that the Wisconsin/MSU loser would have to have a significant drop. Wisconsin is so far ahead of Michigan in the polls (12 in USA, 13 in Harris compared to 16 in each for Michigan). Losing to MSU wouldn't likely be enough to drop them 3-4 spots in those polls. Michigan is way, way ahead of them in the computers though (.410 to .250), as Wisconsin has played no one outside of MSU and is in the way weaker Big10 division, which could work in their advantage. If Wisconsin wins though, no way does MSU drop enough.

    There just are very few things that can bounce right for Michigan to get to 14. South Carolina isn't playing, even though they are terrible and don't deserve their rank. Kansas State plays Iowa State which in theory could be tough (ask OSU) and would kill them if they lose. So Michigan needs Georgia to lose in embarrassing fashion (which will happen) and Wisconsin to lose bad enough to move them behind Michigan in the eyes of the USA Today voters. I am hesitant to believe that will happen. If it does though, Michigan vs Houston will be a fun game. That willl almost certainly be the matchup because none of the BCS bowls want Houston so they will definitely try and get Michigan in that game to try and draw the national audience which, fair to MSU/Wisconsin or not, Michigan can do better than most other teams in the NCAA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •