Post-season Play-offs
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
-
mountainman
-
colorado_loves_football
Well, in the case of W. Virginia, this year it didn't but in the case of Pittsburgh, last year, it did, so I guess it's all relative, after all.mountainman wrote:What I like best about the BCS is that it promotes excellence and does not reward mediocrity.
Pittsburgh was Big East co-champion, along with 3 other teams, I believe.
They weren't outstanding, but were good enough to be selected, by virtue of the BCS rule that gives the Big East champion an automatic bid.
What's done is done, but it wasn't a 'fair' selection process, nor was it a good pairing of teams, competitively. But I guess we can all blame W. Virginia for that, they were supposed to walk away with the Big East conference, but didn't. They made up for that this year, but that doesn't erase their mediocrity from the year before. But maybe you are right, as W. Virginia wasn't the Big East representative. If they had been then you'd have to eat your words.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
What I like best about the BCS is that it promotes excellence and does not reward mediocrity.
Yes it does. It says that if you play a good schedule and are successful, you will be rewarded. the games are about money, but I see nothing wrong with them wanting to make money. Sometimes, as in Auburn's case, no matter how good you are you don't get to prove it. But Auburn was the one who put the 1-AA game on their schedule, so they really need to look in the mirror to find someone to blame.
Teams can't just win all their games and be assured a shot. This is different from the days before the BCS. You have to play a good schedule and win. The teams that duck the good OOC games will pay for it in the rankings. Ohio State scheduled 1-AA Youngstown St. in a few years, if they win all their games and two other teams do too, it will come back and bite them in the butt.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
With respect to TCU, I doubt anyone would make the analogy that they were competitive against Texas, so I'm a little surprised you would make that comparison,yourself. Secondly, they dont' control who they play, you can't really use that in your defense. They elected to join the MWC to allow them greater opportunity to play better competition, and it worked, in many respects, but obviously not every respect.
SMU is a hard team to beat in Dallas. I don't think their losing to them was such a deal-breaker. They recovered nicely, and won the MWC outright. Had they been in C-USA it would have likely been a lot more devastating, so I figure it's a relatively 'minor' loss, competitively speaking. It would have been better, had SMU say won C-USA, but as it was, they didn't. Either way, TCU was a lot better this year, than last year, by anyone's standard.
Finally, you can't punish a team for playing where they play. TCU wasn't invited to join the Big XII Confernece or they would likely be playing better competition. They play who they play, and play them on equal terms. That's how it is with most teams. The one who finishes on top deserves a fair opportunity to play in the BCS. That's my argument in a nutshell.
SMU is a hard team to beat in Dallas. I don't think their losing to them was such a deal-breaker. They recovered nicely, and won the MWC outright. Had they been in C-USA it would have likely been a lot more devastating, so I figure it's a relatively 'minor' loss, competitively speaking. It would have been better, had SMU say won C-USA, but as it was, they didn't. Either way, TCU was a lot better this year, than last year, by anyone's standard.
Finally, you can't punish a team for playing where they play. TCU wasn't invited to join the Big XII Confernece or they would likely be playing better competition. They play who they play, and play them on equal terms. That's how it is with most teams. The one who finishes on top deserves a fair opportunity to play in the BCS. That's my argument in a nutshell.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
Well, as I recall, W. Virginia, the pre-season favorite to win the Big East, tanked. But you are at least partly correct, W. Virginia wasn't rewarded for being mediocre, they weren't good enough to do that. The bar was raised, this year, in no small part due to the fact the Big East commissioner added schools from C-USA, schools that were left out of the BCS, for whatever reason, over Big East co-champion Pittsburgh.
You don't honestly believe that the Big East upgraded by losing Miami and Virginia Tech. The losses that the Big East suffered from the ACC raid were devastating. Hopefully they will climb out of the pit in which they were left. West Virginia beating Georgia is a good start, but they have a long climb out.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
Spence, I disagree on insufficient evidence. If it 'rewards' excellence, then why wasn't TCU selected? Is one loss sufficient reason not to select a team for competitive reasons?
It is when they play the 58 best schedule in the country. TCU may have been as good as Texas was this year, no one knows for sure. But if they don't play a better schedule, losing to a team like SMU is going to tank their chances of recovering from it.
But Boise St. and Louisville were both left out, and both were better, and more deserving than Big East co-champion Pittsburgh was, no matter how you slice it.
I agree with that, but Pitt was an automatic qualifier. It isn't like they were picked at-large. The ACC raid of the B-East bought them a few years to rebuild. West Virginia beatting Georgia this year helped the Big East's cause a lot. They still have to keep proving they belong to stay and they know it.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
mountainman
Far be it from me to defend Pitt .... that would cause too many dead relatives to not turn over, but spin in their graves. 
Yep, the Big East was in trouble and is not out of the woods yet. So much that the Big East was told by the BCS that they would be evaluated and possibly lose their automatic qualification to their conference champion. That's demanding excellence.
Miami and Virginia Tech suddenly bolting the conference and the following year Boston College coupled with Pitts poor performance in the Fiesta Bowl against Utah created concern about ability of the conference to compete at the level of excellence the BCS demands. The jury is still out on that, by the way. Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt (Syracuse has to get back on its feet) and up and comer South Florida are going to have to prove, going forward in the short term, that the Big East belongs.
Yes the BCS does demand excellence. They tell the BCS conferences (that represent well over half the D-1 schools e.g 65) if you win your conference you qualify for a BCS Bowl bid. They tell all 119 D-1 teams, if based on a set of standards if you finish in the top 6 positions of the rankings you qualify for a BCS Bowl bid and if you finish in either the 1 or 2 spot you will play for the national title. Also, if you finish in the top 12 positions of the rankings you qualify to be selected to a BCS Bowl as decided upon by the bowls themselves. That is promoting and demanding excellence.
These playoff scenarios that have been put forth, that I'm aware of, do not address the two major problems that the BCS or any other football format has.
The first 'problem' is how to select the participants and the next problem is the reliance on a single game to determine the 'champion'.
The playoffs say we select who's in the playoff some way or another and 'let you decide it on the field'. That's nothing but a cop-out because there is still a selection process and the 'champion' is still decided by one game. The BCS says we're going to select you based on these criteria over the course of the regular season and if you are one of the two top ranked teams you will play for the championship. Both methods, playoffs and BCS have the same problems.
Until someone can come up with a system that continues to serve the best interest of college football and has a better way to address these two problems there is no good reason or justification to change.
And I believe it is in the best interest of college football to demand excellence not mediocrity.
Yep, the Big East was in trouble and is not out of the woods yet. So much that the Big East was told by the BCS that they would be evaluated and possibly lose their automatic qualification to their conference champion. That's demanding excellence.
Miami and Virginia Tech suddenly bolting the conference and the following year Boston College coupled with Pitts poor performance in the Fiesta Bowl against Utah created concern about ability of the conference to compete at the level of excellence the BCS demands. The jury is still out on that, by the way. Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt (Syracuse has to get back on its feet) and up and comer South Florida are going to have to prove, going forward in the short term, that the Big East belongs.
Yes the BCS does demand excellence. They tell the BCS conferences (that represent well over half the D-1 schools e.g 65) if you win your conference you qualify for a BCS Bowl bid. They tell all 119 D-1 teams, if based on a set of standards if you finish in the top 6 positions of the rankings you qualify for a BCS Bowl bid and if you finish in either the 1 or 2 spot you will play for the national title. Also, if you finish in the top 12 positions of the rankings you qualify to be selected to a BCS Bowl as decided upon by the bowls themselves. That is promoting and demanding excellence.
These playoff scenarios that have been put forth, that I'm aware of, do not address the two major problems that the BCS or any other football format has.
The first 'problem' is how to select the participants and the next problem is the reliance on a single game to determine the 'champion'.
The playoffs say we select who's in the playoff some way or another and 'let you decide it on the field'. That's nothing but a cop-out because there is still a selection process and the 'champion' is still decided by one game. The BCS says we're going to select you based on these criteria over the course of the regular season and if you are one of the two top ranked teams you will play for the championship. Both methods, playoffs and BCS have the same problems.
Until someone can come up with a system that continues to serve the best interest of college football and has a better way to address these two problems there is no good reason or justification to change.
And I believe it is in the best interest of college football to demand excellence not mediocrity.
-
mountainman
As I understand it, the NCAA and some of its various sub-committees and groups have investigated and discussed the potential of "super conferences" and/or regional groupings.
The rationality of it, so far, has been overcome by other interests such as historic rivalries, boards of governors, etc. These conferences are bonded and formed by historic rivalries.
They are aware that they must take care not to destroy what it has taken college football over a century to build.
The rationality of it, so far, has been overcome by other interests such as historic rivalries, boards of governors, etc. These conferences are bonded and formed by historic rivalries.
They are aware that they must take care not to destroy what it has taken college football over a century to build.
-
colorado_loves_football
Well, now I understand why you would consider my opinions to be biased and prejudicial when the reality is they aren't.
Why couldn't a military academy compete for a national title? If they are sufficiently capable they ought to be allowed the same opportunity any other team has. That's part of the problem with how the BCS is arranged, it gives priority to teams that don't really deserve it, in my opinion.
If you review the data I submitted you might come to a different opinion. Army is represented, along with Navy, and believe it or not, Air Force, 1958. They played TCU in the Cotton Bowl, the game ended in a tie, 0-0.
That was interesting for several reasons. The Air Force Academy I believe was in its infancy, so for them to be competitive so early is remarkable, really! TCU was ranked nationally, #10 overall, so it's not like Air Force was playing some light-weight.
And that again shows how in a game, anything can happen. In this day and age you wont' be hearing about a 0-0 tie, it can't happen.
But there was once a time when it did happen, and I contend it was 'good' for college football. Whether or not that matters now, maybe is a different matter, but the academies by-and-large were very competitive athletically.
Why couldn't a military academy compete for a national title? If they are sufficiently capable they ought to be allowed the same opportunity any other team has. That's part of the problem with how the BCS is arranged, it gives priority to teams that don't really deserve it, in my opinion.
If you review the data I submitted you might come to a different opinion. Army is represented, along with Navy, and believe it or not, Air Force, 1958. They played TCU in the Cotton Bowl, the game ended in a tie, 0-0.
That was interesting for several reasons. The Air Force Academy I believe was in its infancy, so for them to be competitive so early is remarkable, really! TCU was ranked nationally, #10 overall, so it's not like Air Force was playing some light-weight.
And that again shows how in a game, anything can happen. In this day and age you wont' be hearing about a 0-0 tie, it can't happen.
But there was once a time when it did happen, and I contend it was 'good' for college football. Whether or not that matters now, maybe is a different matter, but the academies by-and-large were very competitive athletically.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
mountainman
No, I didn't.
The reason is that the landscape of college football has changed so much since the game came into being. Comparisons of historical happenings and the historical landscape to current happenings and the current landscape would probably be misleading if used as a basis going forward due to the tendency some may have to use or mix and match either the the happening (historical or current) or the landscape (historical or current) out of context simply to support a position or thought. It has been my experience that this practice will often times allow one to supposedly justify an incorrect thought or position. For example, I do not expect to see the United States Military Academy back in the national title game in the foreseeable future.
One reason I do not pay particular attention to your posts is that they change signifiantly either through editing or some other means from read to read. I can only wonder why that happens. That, as a general rule of mine, makes a reply out of the question. But, as you witiness here, there are exceptions.
The reason is that the landscape of college football has changed so much since the game came into being. Comparisons of historical happenings and the historical landscape to current happenings and the current landscape would probably be misleading if used as a basis going forward due to the tendency some may have to use or mix and match either the the happening (historical or current) or the landscape (historical or current) out of context simply to support a position or thought. It has been my experience that this practice will often times allow one to supposedly justify an incorrect thought or position. For example, I do not expect to see the United States Military Academy back in the national title game in the foreseeable future.
One reason I do not pay particular attention to your posts is that they change signifiantly either through editing or some other means from read to read. I can only wonder why that happens. That, as a general rule of mine, makes a reply out of the question. But, as you witiness here, there are exceptions.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
was the Big East better this year then they were last year? Yes. Last year they were scrambling to make up games left by the void of the teams that left. They were in total disarray. This year they had some structure as they are beginning to build their way back.
Are they a better conference without BC, Va. Tech, and Miami? They aren't and it isn't close. It would be like taking Ohio State and Michigan out of the B-10 or Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska out of the B-12. It is crazy to even suggest that the B-east is even close to being as good as they were.
Can they rebuild? Of course they can. It won't be easy and I think they need to add or find at least one more top tier team. Notre Dame maybe? West Virginia and Pitt are in the best position to rise up. Louisville is trying to make the transition, those programs can make the B-East into a powerful conference again if they stay consistently competitive. consistently is the key word here. The big thing that separates the majors from the mid-majors is that the majors win at a high level and they do it consistently. They don't have one or two good years and then fall off the map for ten more.
The reason the majors get priority over the mid majors isn't some big conspiracy. The majors get priority because they are consistently good.
Are they a better conference without BC, Va. Tech, and Miami? They aren't and it isn't close. It would be like taking Ohio State and Michigan out of the B-10 or Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska out of the B-12. It is crazy to even suggest that the B-east is even close to being as good as they were.
Can they rebuild? Of course they can. It won't be easy and I think they need to add or find at least one more top tier team. Notre Dame maybe? West Virginia and Pitt are in the best position to rise up. Louisville is trying to make the transition, those programs can make the B-East into a powerful conference again if they stay consistently competitive. consistently is the key word here. The big thing that separates the majors from the mid-majors is that the majors win at a high level and they do it consistently. They don't have one or two good years and then fall off the map for ten more.
The reason the majors get priority over the mid majors isn't some big conspiracy. The majors get priority because they are consistently good.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
Guest
Was that a sentence?mountainman wrote: Comparisons of historical happenings and the historical landscape to current happenings and the current landscape would probably be misleading if used as a basis going forward due to the tendency some may have to use or mix and match either the the happening (historical or current) or the landscape (historical or current) out of context simply to support a position or thought.
The reason i modify my postings is I was instructed to by the people who oversee it. I have tried, pretty hard to be objective, in my postings, unlike many who have put their own 'spin' on things here. That being said, I apologize for nothing I have written, as it has been my opinion all along that the BCS is biased and prejudiciall with respect to how it operates. It has the luxury, I suppose to be that way, but that doesn't make it right on principle. I'm moderately offended by what you said you are accusing me of trying to manipulate data toward my own end.
Nothing could be further from the truth, I ask you to make your own assessment of the data as it exists. Come to another conclusion if you must, but don't put the 'burden of proof' on something you obviously lack, objectivity.
-
mountainman
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests