- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ranking the BCS Controversies
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:32 pm to Ross
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:32 pm to Ross
quote:
* 4: Year, 2006. No. 1 Ohio State beat No. 2 Michigan in an epic regular-season thriller and the talk afterward was whether Michigan, with one loss, deserved a rematch in the BCS title game. The BCS rankings, instead, promoted one-loss Florida to No. 2, and the Gators took advantage by beating Ohio State to win the BCS title.
This set up can be controversial.
Obviously, Ohio State and UM got waxed in their bowl games, but take away the names for a minute.
Team A is ranked 1. Team B is ranked 2.
Team A and B are scheduled to play(Team A home game).
Team A wins, but only by 3 in a thrilling game in Team A's house.
Since we base so much off of the polls, wouldn't team B be expected to lose? And, they only lost by 3 at Team A's stadium.
That's not good enough to warrant the thought of a rematch on a neutral setting?
Again, take away the fact that it was Ohio State and Michigan... does that change your mind at all?
What if it were...
say, LSU and Florida at one and two in that scenario?
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 6:34 pm
2
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:33 pm to xiv
quote:
Seriously...you think Rick Reilly is smarter than Isaac Newton?
No, but I think Rick Reilly knows more about football than Issac Newton.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:33 pm to Zamoro10
I think the #1 and 2 should be 2003 and 2004... only in those two years IMO were teams that had some right to be considered the best in the country excluded from teh game
I'm not pimping 2003 USC btw... through no fault of their own they played a deplorably easy schedule and still lost a game... they were also lucky enough to win an AP title in spite of this
2004 Auburn was really screwed (hee hee)... although both OU and USC did run their regular season schedules Auburn showed no flaws and finished the season with an impressive resume of quality teams defeated
The 2007 season was a bit of a clusterfrick too... with a bunch of teams backing out of a chance to be in the big game... but I think on the balance the right two teams were in the game that year... and no other team had a legitimate arguement for why they should have been there instead IMO (Ohio State for their record and LSU for their quality of wins and record)
So, in my mind the controversies should be
1) 2004
2) 2003 - again, here at least the three top teams were given a title game or a share of the championship
3) argue about at your own bias... teams claiming to be #2's will whine from many years... but no one can argue they should have been considered #1 instead of the team that won the bcs title
I'm not pimping 2003 USC btw... through no fault of their own they played a deplorably easy schedule and still lost a game... they were also lucky enough to win an AP title in spite of this
2004 Auburn was really screwed (hee hee)... although both OU and USC did run their regular season schedules Auburn showed no flaws and finished the season with an impressive resume of quality teams defeated
The 2007 season was a bit of a clusterfrick too... with a bunch of teams backing out of a chance to be in the big game... but I think on the balance the right two teams were in the game that year... and no other team had a legitimate arguement for why they should have been there instead IMO (Ohio State for their record and LSU for their quality of wins and record)
So, in my mind the controversies should be
1) 2004
2) 2003 - again, here at least the three top teams were given a title game or a share of the championship
3) argue about at your own bias... teams claiming to be #2's will whine from many years... but no one can argue they should have been considered #1 instead of the team that won the bcs title
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:36 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
* 1: Year, 2001. Colorado thrashed BCS No. 1 Nebraska, 62-36, the day after Thanksgiving. Yet, Cornhusker players left crying in their locker room in Boulder were smiling again days later when Nebraska rebounded to No. 2 in the final BCS standings behind undefeated Miami.
false
nebraska was still the 2nd best team in the country and the BCS got it right...'01 Miami just happened the be the best CFB team ever and would have destroyed anyone
'03 was the biggest frickup, because there was another worthy team in USC, unlike in '01
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:37 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
Again, take away the fact that it was Ohio State and Michigan... does that change your mind at all?
LSU and Florida play in the SEC. So, yes, that does change my mind. OSU and Meeshagan played each other close, but in the end neither deserved to be ranked as high as they were (an assumption due to their dismal performaces in bowl games).
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:37 pm to BuckeyeFan87
At the time the argument can be made. But the fact that the games between A and B took place immediately before the bowl season negates why the two should rematch.
It kinda ties into why I think playoffs aren't inherently the answer. If Michigan beat you in the hypothectical OSU/Michigan matchup, why objectively speaking, would that game mean more than the one immediately prior?
(Assuming something like the Giants/Pats works out with this scenario)
It kinda ties into why I think playoffs aren't inherently the answer. If Michigan beat you in the hypothectical OSU/Michigan matchup, why objectively speaking, would that game mean more than the one immediately prior?
(Assuming something like the Giants/Pats works out with this scenario)
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:52 pm to molsusports
OK, here's what irritates me about 2003 and 2004.
Whenever these controversies are brought up it turns into an argument between USC and Auburn or USC and LSU.
The truth was Oklahoma was the team that had no business in those games and they proved that on the field.
In 2003 Oklahoma got killed in their conference championship game by an unranked Kansas St. The game wasn't even close. I think K-state was up by 30 at the half or something. Anyway how does a team that gets blown out in its conf. champ game get rewarded with a spot in the title game? They should have known the system was broken right then and there.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:56 pm to AUFANATL
That is why the modified it so it would never happen again. 
If 2003 had happened with the current BCS rules, LSU and USC would play.
If 2003 had happened with the current BCS rules, LSU and USC would play.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:58 pm to BuckeyeFan87
quote:
This set up can be controversial.
Obviously, Ohio State and UM got waxed in their bowl games, but take away the names for a minute.
Team A is ranked 1. Team B is ranked 2.
Team A and B are scheduled to play(Team A home game).
Team A wins, but only by 3 in a thrilling game in Team A's house.
Since we base so much off of the polls, wouldn't team B be expected to lose? And, they only lost by 3 at Team A's stadium.
That's not good enough to warrant the thought of a rematch on a neutral setting?
Again, take away the fact that it was Ohio State and Michigan... does that change your mind at all?
What if it were...
say, LSU and Florida at one and two in that scenario?
If Michigan had done well and won against USC, or Ohio State against Florida, or maybe both, then an argument can be made for a controversy. Fortunately, the two bowl games proved that neither Ohio State or Michigan deserved the national title and there was no controversy at the end of the season.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:01 pm to DBG
quote:
false
nebraska was still the 2nd best team in the country and the BCS got it right...'01 Miami just happened the be the best CFB team ever and would have destroyed anyone
'03 was the biggest frickup, because there was another worthy team in USC, unlike in '01
Oregon was clearly the 2nd best team.
Really many of these controversies could have been eliminated if you made the rule that you have to a conference champion to play for the MNC.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:03 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
Oregon was clearly the 2nd best team.
It really doesn't matter, they would have gotten drilled just like Nebraska. But I agree, it should have been Oregon in the title game.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:03 pm to Ross
quote:
If Michigan had done well and won against USC, or Ohio State against Florida, or maybe both, then an argument can be made for a controversy
Yeah, but I'm talking about before the fact.
I don't remember anybody saying "Michigan should have been in that game!!!" after bowl season.
Again, that's why I said take Ohio State/Michigan out of the equation and look at it from a new perspective.
I also added
quote:
This set up can be controversial.
just to make sure everyone knew I wasn't arguing for it.
I know what you're saying though
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:09 pm to xiv
quote:
The BCS isn't perfect, but it's WAY closer than you think.
Dont take this the wrong way, but to say that is insane.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:33 pm to xiv
quote:
MLB plays 162!!! games, and they still need a fricking wild card?
More money baby!
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:51 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
How could it be asinine? Surely they had seen the games with their own eyes and made fair and inbiased decision.
Because they had JUST played and one team lost. That's why...rematches are for Apollo Creed.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 7:54 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
quote:
Seriously...you think Rick Reilly is smarter than Isaac Newton?
No, but I think Rick Reilly knows more about football than Issac Newton.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:01 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
I'm not pimping 2003 USC btw... through no fault of their own they played a deplorably easy schedule and still lost a game...
Tell that to #6 ranked Auburn. 23-0.
BTW Oregon destroyed Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl...they would've made the Rose Bowl against the U interesting...for a half.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:24 pm to Zamoro10
I have never felt that when a team loses should matter. At the end of the year, if two teams have the same amount of losses, the whole season should be looked at, not just the last few games.
However, I think that it should be added in the formula that you must be a conference champion. If we had a playoff, I wouldn't say that, but without a playoff, I think that this should be added, especially when looking at two teams from the same conference.
However, I think that it should be added in the formula that you must be a conference champion. If we had a playoff, I wouldn't say that, but without a playoff, I think that this should be added, especially when looking at two teams from the same conference.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:27 pm to Cornholio
quote:
Dont take this the wrong way, but to say that is insane.
How is that statement insane?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 8:40 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Tell that to #6 ranked Auburn. 23-0.
Dude, we sucked that season.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News