Coaches Poll...who had OK State as #4 or more

[Brian Roastbeef]

Meanwhile it's win-win for ESPN because as one hand beats the drum in pumping LSU-Alabama as this arbitrary final determination of best team in the country, they simultaneously play to the public discontent by trumpeting the plus one. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were playing the long game here, specifically giving viewers what they didn't want out of the hope of scoring another game to air in future seasons.

The BCS is like what they say of socialism: good in theory but horrible in practice. Also, like socialism, it isn't all that good in theory either; it takes the determination of success out of the hands of the teams themselves and into a bloated overseeing body. The old bowl system had its value. It was sort of like a sandbox-style video game. Success was determined by each school and goals differed among programs. The individual bowls, small and large were their own reward. Who cared what was going on in the SEC, as long as the rivalries were beat and the opportunity to play in the conference's top bowl was won? Alas, it was a mark of regional football and when the Big East stretches from Newark to San Diego, it's safe to say that regionalism is no more. Instead of loading up for a December road trip one state over to watch the nearest bowl, we turn on the TV in January to watch the champion, and the games before that are increasingly meaningless.

Of course, the end of regionalism was inevitable. Much of that is from technology, and much of it is good. I like being able to sit in NY and get accurate updated info on Hawaii's roster. Meanwhile if crowning a national champion as the other sports serves to benefit the sport and those who support it, then I see that as favorable as well. The problem is that the measure for success is now determined by the networks and bureaucrats, who simultaneously limit the means for success. That's why I believe that if you are going to set about that goal, then a full playoff is necessary. Let performance be the determining factor in who takes home the big trophy at the end, not the whims and favors of overseeing powers; that way lies the corruption and decline that has undermined boxing.

[RazorHawk]

Not sure how ESPN makes more money with LSU playing Alabama, as opposed to LSU vs Oklahoma State? What am I missing? Is it because there are more TV sets in Alabama compared to Oklahoma, or that more people in Alabama have cable tv, while those in Oklahoma just have TV antennas?

I really think the majority, myself included, would rather not see a rematch, so not sure how that is good. And we have 1 person, sworn not to watch the game, and I am sure there may be two or three others also that will not watch because of the rematch. Again, how is that to the benefit of ESPN?

[billybud]

Really Razor...you hit that one.

ESPN will promote whoever is in the title game because it behooves them to do so....They are in the business of having people watch the games. ESPN didn't have the computers score Bama over OK State...ESPN didn't twist the arms of the Harris voters, or Coaches...

ESPN is fine as long as there are good match ups that people will watch. Will folks watch Stanford vs OK State...you bet! ESPN is fine with that match too.

There are some lost bowls that relatively few folks will view.

Many have no national interest. I think that after the championship game, folks will watch Stanford-OK State #2, Wisconsin-Oregon #3, Michigan -VT #4...I am putting OK State's game above the Rose Bowl because I think folks are interested in OK State and Stanford.

[Spence]

It isn't about the teams it is about the controversy. That gives all their talking heads something to scream about for the whole month leading to the games. If those shows draw good ratings they make money. Oklahoma - LSU is the match up that was backed by precedent. Alabama - LSU gives them a controvery. A way to get people in the south west, west, midwest, and east to tune in. Those show cost reletively nothing and if they can pull a good number the ad money is very good. ESPN doesn't care about "good matchups" necessarily. The more controversy leading into the game the more days of good ratings they get. ESPN makes many times more money in the days leading up to the games than they make on the games themselves. ESPN doesn't care who the teams are, they just want games with controversy.

[billybud]

The BCS is the BCS...it puts the best two teams in the country together for the showdown. In deciding the "best two", a set of rules is formulated before the season.

That set of rules, for computers and humans, does not include a provision for penalty for a rematch if the "best" two teams have already played. The controversy, I guess, is from those humans that would like that rule to be in place. There is no controversy amongst computers....they hummed, clicked, and have no remorse.

I like OK State fine for #2...but I felt that the game that did already happen between #1 and 2 was incomplete...neither team proved they were the better team. A tie, I feel, is what it was and would have been for most of my years of fandom. I am glad that we see them play it out again.

The fact that I am a childhood Bama fan and that my uncle, brother, sister, sister's kid, and 1st cousin are Auburn grads just may shade me a little. Honestly, as the family black sheep, I will root for Bama so that I don't have to hear the yada, yada. I also played football with my boyhood friend who played linebacker at Auburn and I have to play nice as he gives me more yada.

A Bama win is a yada killer....

[Spence]

This is a couple of things said in '06:

Razorhawk wrote:
I think you make a great point that members of conferences play conference games and then mostly cupcake wins. This does make it very difficult to evaluate the various strengths of the conferences.

Spence wrote:
It is exactly why no rematches should be given. You don't know who the best teams are unless you have a way to compare them. Letting a team who has already played #1 play again is just unfair to the other conferences.

Billybud wrote:
There should be no rematch of the Ohio State/Michigan game. Unlike the courts, the BCS has no double jeopardy clause.

In the 13 times that teams have been rematched in the bowls, the original winner has won only four. The wnner of the first game seems to be at a disadvantage in the rematch. So much of a big college game is emotional. After beating a major opponent, it is hard to get up when you find that you have to face the opponent again. The opponent is energized by the chance at redemption.

But a very close match between OSU and Michigan could tweak the BCS into a rematch..ugh. In 1975, OSU blasted UCLA 41-20 but lost in the Rose Bowl to UCLA 23-10 and thus also lost the chance at the national championship.

Spence wrote:
I agree. If you lose you should be out. If the regular season in CFB is one big playoff then the loser of The Game shouldn't get a second chance. Not with other teams not getting the first one.


Billybud wrote:
I have hated the rematches...FSU vs Florida and FSU vs Miami have both been rematches that shouldn't have happened.

OSU/Michigan is done for this year...hopefully.

[billybud]

Awww,,,that was then, this is now.

[billybud]

And it's Bama...not a freekin' Big Ten rematch. LOL.

[Spence]

Awww,,,that was then, this is now.

by billybud on Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:14 am

And it's Bama...not a freekin' Big Ten rematch. LOL.

Exactly. That is 100% of my point.

[donovan]

On the Left Side of this country, we learned at very early age, when you walk down the road with your buddies and pick up a rock and throw it at a telephone pole and hit it with the first rock, you never pick up the second rock. Rematches are for those that never learned the most basic facts of life.

[Spence]

I could pull up more quotes with people on this forum saying that they thought Ohio State and Michigan were the top two teams, but that Michigan had their chance and someone else should get their shot at number 1. This was before Florida was lock in so the opinions on who that team should be varied, but the situation compared to today was the same. To his credit, Eric did end up agreeing that Michigan should not get the reamatch. Although he stated that if the situation were different, people would say that (USC and Florida. the teams at the time) should get the rematch. Eric was right.

[Spence]

On the Left Side of this country, we learned at very early age, when you walk down the road with your buddies and pick up a rock and throw it at a telephone pole and hit it with the first rock, you never pick up the second rock. Rematches are for those that never learned the most basic facts of life.

That works on the golf course with winding putts too. Never attempt to prove the shot.

[billybud]

I have an admitted prejudice about Big Ten teams...that year, Ohio State did go on to be blown out by Florida in the NC game and Michigan was beaten by two TD's in the Rose. Michigan had 12 yards rushing in 27 attempts...

Rather than a rematch...neither team turned out to be actually NC material.

But..I get the point that we wouldn't have known about the over rating if the rematch had been played.

[Spence]

Most here and nationally thought that Ohio State and Michigan were the two best teams. I was the one who had reservations about Ohio State's offensive line and also the linebackers getting caught in the dead spot in the zone on intermediate routes. I do admit to think that Ohio State would still win the game. I thought Florida could win it, but not that they would win it like they did. You even stated that Ohio State "looked like number one" It was alot like this situation. If Michigan and Ohio State would have been allowed to play, no one would have ever known that they weren't the two best teams in the nation.

I personally believe that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams. I would just have liked for the BCS voters to be consistent and let us find out for sure.

[Derek]

Meanwhile it's win-win for ESPN because as one hand beats the drum in pumping LSU-Alabama as this arbitrary final determination of best team in the country, they simultaneously play to the public discontent by trumpeting the plus one. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were playing the long game here, specifically giving viewers what they didn't want out of the hope of scoring another game to air in future seasons.

This is 100% truth!! They KNEW the public did not want this, but they did it anyways. This concept is popular when used in "community activism".

The problem is that it appears so innocent to those who have not followed football for long. But if you have, it's completely transparent.