Posted on 12/03/2006 2:41:24 PM PST by BurbankKarl
the sec schedules the most worthless out of conference teams I have ever seen.
Definitely, a home game 3 time zones west, and 40 degrees warmer.
This is a red herring. I often hear fans of teams in weak conferences talk about out of conference games. When you are in a weak conference, you have to play strong out of conference teams to prove yourself. If you are in a strong conference, you prove yourself in your in-conference schedule.
When your in conference schedule includes 10-2 LSU, 10-2 Auburn, 10-2 Arkansas, 9-1 Tennessee, 8-4 Georgia, and 7-5 South Carolina (probably the strongest 7-5 team in the country this year), you don't need a strong out of conference schedule to prove yourself.
When your conference schedule includes 11-1 Michigan and 8-4 Penn State, but also includes 6-6 Iowa, 6-6 Minnesota, 5-7 Indiana, 4-8 Michigan State, 4-8 Northwestern, and 2-10 Illinois, you have to play 9-3 Texas to get another "quality win". Not to suggest 7-5 Northern Illinois, 7-5 Cincinnati aren't quality.
You just don't hear fans of NFL AFC teams compare teams based on their cross-conference NFC opponents. Now that Major League Baseball has cross league play, I don't hear fans of the National League compare teams based on their cross-league AL opponents.
Win your division first, then your conference/league, then compete at the next level. That is the way most sports work.
Next I expect to hear the "who you lost to" argument. Like champions are determined by who they lose to, rather than who they beat.
Last year the Big10 was easily the strongest conference during the regular season. This year, you have a point...though I'm not so sure tht Penn State belongs in the "Average" section, given that they haven't yet lost to a team not in the top 10.
That's because AS A WHOLE the NFC has been losing most of the cross-conference games. In 2004, what, 4 teams in the NFC had winning records against the AFC teams, being as a whole 24 games down? This year, they're doing better only being 14 down so far this year.
but the comparison is weak on other bases as well: For starters, the Division and Conference records are just tiebreakers in the NFL.
Further, to address an earlier post...you're actually arguing that Florida is better than Michigan because OSU didn't lose games to Minnesota, Iowa, and Indiana (in which case, those teams would all have winning records)?
Ha!! Good one!
And didn't Ball State give Michigan a close game in Ann Arbor?
oops. NFC had only two teams with winning records against the NFC...Minnesota and Atlanta were 3-1. 5 AFC teams were 4-0, and only Cleveland Houston and KC had losing records, at 1-3.
How come the 'education is a top priority and these are student athletes' gets thrown out the window when it comes to Division 1AA and Division 2 college football players, who in my mind are far more student than athletes compared to the Division 1 guys.
Here's another scenario to highlight how big a fraud this BCS system is when it comes to determining a mythical national champ:
Undefeated Ohio St wins ugly by 2 or 3 over Florida
Michigan is pounded by USC, losing by 20
Undefeated Boise St pounds OU, winning 34-17
Who can then say for sure that Ohio St is better than Boise St, both being undefeated? Remember that Boise St pounded 7-4 Oregon St 42-17, an Oregon St that beat USC, a USC that just pounded Michigan, considered by many to be on par with Ohio St (3-point loss at Ohio St., and Vegas always gives 3 points to a team for home field advantage.)
Of course you can't really use circular logic to claim that one team is better than another, but you can use it to show that there is often no way in hell of knowing who really is the best team without a playoff.
The Democrats are already going to investigate the NCAA for tax evasion. They dont need a playoff hassle.
Urban Meyer did it, I'm sure.
You got any salt I can barrow?
You're kind of ranting there betsy. The last TD Auburn scored in that game was the very last play of the game and was the result of a fumble when Florida was running that hook and ladder play as time was running out. Plus, Auburn got their other TD on a bad call by the ref (by ALL accounts) that should have been ruled an incomplete pass. Auburn never did score an offensive touchdown.
Michigan will probably lose to USC 44-42, then maybe you'll quit your whining.
The BCS +5 Playoff
Simply expand the BCS from 10 teams to 12, and add 4 playoff games between the BCS bowls/bowl season and the (currently mythical) national championship game.
Keep the BCS, BCS bowls, and all the other bowls, but modify it into a 12-team playoff, with just 5 additional playoff games after the New Year's bowls (and actual a net of just 4 additional games.) Right now 10 teams go to 5 bowl games based out of the 4 BCS bowls (with the bogus mythical nat'l champ game being a 2nd game for one of the BCS bowls on a rotating basis.) There is talk of going to a +1 playoff format, where the top 2 BCS bowl winners meet in a nat'l champ game. But that would likely require either going back to 8 BCS teams (very unlikely for political reasons) or adding a 5th BCS bowl. Doing the latter wouldn't hurt the BCS revenues one iota, the original 4 BCS bowls could still keep to themselves the final champ game on a rotating basis and the new 5th BCS bowl could have a separately negotiated TV contract if they were worried about it diluting their existing TV contract.
For that reason expanding to a 6th BCS bowl and 12 BCS teams won't hurt the existing BCS bowls and would provide an excellent 12-team playoff that preserves all the bowls, includes virtually every team that has a legitimate claim to being the best, doesn't interfere with finals week, and only strenghtens the existing BCS bowls and revenues. It also provides a better chance of including deserving minor conference teams. Plus if you drop the limit of 2 teams per conference down to 3, it should take away the criticism that a potential actual best team (such as Wisconsin or LSU/Auburn) gets frozen out if a conference is very top heavy.
Round One: Add 2 BCS bowls, choose 12 teams using the BCS, and play the BCS bowl games during the New Year's holidays just as always. They can seed them 1-12, or follow the traditional format of the Big 10 (sic) and Pac 10 champs meeting in the Rose and each of the other 4 bowls hosting a conference champ, then seeding the 6 wildcards based on rankings. Keeps all the existing bowls, doesn't have to change the number of bowls, number of bowl teams, or the bowl season at all. They can move up 1 existing bowl and create a new BCS bowl (perhaps in the new Dallas Cowboys' retractible roof stadium in Dallas) or move up 2 existing bowls and add a replacement minor bowl. So all the coaches, schools, conferences, and bowls are happy and don't lose anything.
Round Two: At least a full week after the BCS bowls, give the highest-ranked two winners a bye, and have the #3 & #4 ranked winners host campus home games against #6 & #5 winners.
Round 3: The Final Four, have the bye teams hosting campus home games.
Round Four: The actual national championship game is played in a BCS bowl, rotated among the original 4 BCS bowls, just as it is now.
With 12 BCS teams you get 6 conference champs and 6 wildcards, guaranteeing that even in the worst case the top 6 teams will get into the playoff, and most likely the top 9 or 10 teams, or even all 12 if there are no upsets. It is virtually certain that the actual best team in the country will be in the top 9 or 10 BCS rankings at the end of the year, as opposed to many years where the actual best team doesn't make the BCS top 2 or the #1-ranked team loses their bowl (which by nature suggests that the polls were wrong and thus may have been wrong about who the actual top 2 teams were.)
In that format no school hosts more than 1 playoff game. The existing BCS bowls (and all the other bowls) keep as many games as they have now, with no watering down of the BCS bowls but rather a strengthening since all of them now matter. With no more than 2 games per weekend after the New Year's bowls there shouldn't be any interference with the NFL playoffs. All the traditions remain and the regular season and conference championships still matter (6 wildcards isn't many, especially since 1 or even 2 slots will often go to a minor conference teams, and they could add a rule that only conference champs can host a playoff game.) And the crowned champ has to beat ON THE FIELD 3 or 4 legitimate playoff teams, rather than posing, campaigning, and/or riding an overrated conference's reputation or legacy high initial poll ranking to a 1-game crap shoot. In reality this playoff system only adds a net of 4 extra games to what exists now. Just 4 additional games, all in January, so the university presidents' objections are shown to be completely bogus.
12 teams in a playoff assures that the resulting champion really is the best in the country. And in the process changes the final game from a fraudulent bogus mythical faux-championship that is nothing more than a figure-skating exhibition between 2 beauty contest winners into a legitimate title game.
Not as perfect as a 16-team playoff, but far more feasible and politically doable. In fact if the will is there, this could be done in the next few months, or a year at most. They chose to add a 5th bowl and went to 10 teams in between seasons, so the precedent is there. The Cotton and a Florida bowl (and others) would be beating down the BCS doors to step up and be the 5th and 6th bowls. It is time to institute a playoff, and there are ZERO good excuses for not doing so.
Or how about play by the rules and let the two best teams play. Oh well, at least we have the constellation prize of watching Florida get a first class butt-whopping. And when Wisconsin mops up on an SEC opponent for the second year in a row, we will see how over rated the SEC is. The best chance the SEC has to redeem itself will be Tennesee vs. Penn State, which will be a close matchup. I will grant the SEC is full of many good teams and are the deepest conference, but really there is not one great team in the bunch. The only great teams this year were Michigan and Ohio State.country, but they played one of And I am not so sure Wisconsin was not the third best team in the those SEC out of conference schedules so we really don't know.
oh well, looks like I chopped up my last sentene.
Most of the Div 1AA and 2 athletes are going to school to get an education, not job experience for professional sports.
Florida beat NINE of them this year.
It wasn't always pretty. But the bottom line is that UF beat nine bowl-bound teams this year. That's more than OSU and Michigan combined.
We can play with anybody, there will be no rout. We may not win, but it will not be a 1995 replay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.