T1B

Goober McTuber wrote:Van,

USC and Florida both have looked rather shaky in a few games this year. Michigan only had one such game, Ball State. And is it really worse to lose your rivalry game to the #1 team in the country, or to one of your own conference’s also-rans?

If Michigan had lost to tOSU the last weekend in September, I don’t know that USC would have passed them in the polls. Maybe in the computer rankings, but that’s only one third of the BCS formula.

The same holds true for USC if they'd been undefeated and then lost either of their late season rivalry games to UCLA and ND.

You simply can't lose your rivalry games and you definitely can't lose 'em late.

Michigan's problem vis a vis USC and Florida simply boils down to having to bank on a marquee loss rather than a number of marquee wins. Sure, USC and Florida didn't lose to Ohio St. They couldn't. They didn't get to play 'em. Same as Michigan though, but to a lesser degree, obviously, they lost close games in conference on the road. In Florida's case it was on the road, in conference, to a highly ranked rival, on some shaky calls by the refs.

The problem with Michigan is they're suffering from their loss being the worst type of loss (late season, to an undefeated conference rival who also took the conference too) combining with their decided lack of quality wins. ND and Wisconsin just won't cut it, not against USC's quality wins and probably not against Florida's.

And funny how that quirk in Sagarin that allowed Michigan’s schedule to rank 13th largely because they played tOSU couldn’t pull Texas SOS above 43rd.

Who said Texas played a tough schedule? Wasn't me. Besides losing to OSU Texas played Sam Houston St, Rice and North Texas, along with a very down year Big XII conference schedule. That ain't a very impressive schedule.

Van wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Van,

USC and Florida both have looked rather shaky in a few games this year. Michigan only had one such game, Ball State. And is it really worse to lose your rivalry game to the #1 team in the country, or to one of your own conference’s also-rans?

If Michigan had lost to tOSU the last weekend in September, I don’t know that USC would have passed them in the polls. Maybe in the computer rankings, but that’s only one third of the BCS formula.

The same holds true for USC if they'd been undefeated and then lost either of their late season rivalry games to UCLA and ND.

You simply can't lose your rivalry games and you definitely can't lose 'em late.

Michigan's problem vis a vis USC and Florida simply boils down to having to bank on a marquee loss rather than a number of marquee wins. Sure, USC and Florida didn't lose to Ohio St. They couldn't. They didn't get to play 'em. Same as Michigan though, but to a lesser degree, obviously, they lost close games in conference on the road. In Florida's case it was on the road, in conference, to a highly ranked rival, on some shaky calls by the refs.

The problem with Michigan is they're suffering from their loss being the worst type of loss (late season, to an undefeated conference rival who also took the conference too) combining with their decided lack of quality wins. ND and Wisconsin just won't cut it, not against USC's quality wins and probably not against Florida's.

And funny how that quirk in Sagarin that allowed Michigan’s schedule to rank 13th largely because they played tOSU couldn’t pull Texas SOS above 43rd.

Who said Texas played a tough schedule? Wasn't me. Besides losing to OSU Texas played Sam Houston St, Rice and North Texas, along with a very down year Big XII conference schedule. That ain't a very impressive schedule.

I didn’t say Texas played a tough schedule, I was refuting your contention that the presence of tOSU on Michigan’s schedule was the largest reason for their strong SOS. Jesus, you’re fucking obtuse.

Take OSU off of Michigan's schedule and then re-rank it. Still a bogus 13th??

Christ, is this that difficult for you??

Socaltrojan


when was the last time SC lost to BYU? Colorado State, etc...no difference if you ask me...

good lord...schedules are schedules...unless the NCAA pulls an NFL and mandates the schedules it is what it is...

unless the NCAA pulls an NFL and mandates the schedules

Which is exactly what needs to happen. The NCAA needs to mandate balanced schedules: six home games and six away games.

That'd remove the ability of teams to schedule D-1AA opponents and it'd remove their incentive to schedule flopdog teams like Buffalo. You have to do home and home series then and you're only going to be willing to travel to play other decent programs. You're not going to schedule a home and home with Troy, McNeese St or Nicholls St.

You're going to have to risk the occasional loss by playing a tougher schedule, and so will everybody else, and then all the ADs will finally get over the notion that one loss knocks them out of the title picture.

Bitchin'!

it is what it is..

Greed and cowardice. Right. Agreed. Needs to end. Mandated balanced schedules for everyone. Huzzah!!

Van wrote:Take OSU off of Michigan's schedule and then re-rank it. Still a bogus 13th??

Well I’m sure it wouldn’t fall to 75th. Gee, if you took Cal and Arkansas off of USC’s schedule, do you suppose it would still rank 3rd toughest? Don't be such a tard.

Id be all for NCAA created schedules and everyone playing equal amounts of road and home games

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:Take OSU off of Michigan's schedule and then re-rank it. Still a bogus 13th??

Well I’m sure it wouldn’t fall to 75th. Gee, if you took Cal and Arkansas off of USC’s schedule, do you suppose it would still rank 3rd toughest? Don't be such a tard.

Dumbass, USC BEAT Cal and Arkansas!! Michigan LOST to the the team that's most responsible for giving them their bogus S.O.S. ranking! You wanna give 'em credit for that???

You're pegging the Mace Meter right now.

Van wrote: That'd remove the ability of teams to schedule D-1AA opponents

I guess we'll chalk this up to you not being in math class in 27 years, or whateverthefuck.

There's 119 D1 teams, right?

There's 32 bowl games, right?

32 bowl games requires 64 teams, right?

Teams must go at least .500 to be bowl eligible, right?

64 > 119/2



There's obviously other issues to be adressed before your scenario could ever come to fruition. Like for example:

- Too many bowls

- Your inability to do math


With 32 bowls, D1 teams MUST schedule 1AA schools.

Put your abacus away, Dins, you've once again missed the point. I'm not talking numerical possibilites, I'm talking home and home series, Dins.

Nobody worth a crap is going to schedule a steady diet of home and home series with D-1AA teams. They won't even do it too very often with bottom wrung 1-A programs.

Balanced schedules will mean Auburn or Georgia might actually call up Nebraska once in a while since Buffalo and Florida Weathervane can be the punching bags for only so many OOC games per season...

Maybe Georgia should play Cal-Davis H&H?

Too far to travel for Georgia. If leave the southeast they must for a home and home OOC series they'll no doubt look to schedule Temple three times per season...

Van wrote:If leave the southeast they must for a home and home OOC series

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


RACK!!!!!


Funny shit, Van.

Gerogia hasnt left the south since 1965. Florida hasnt left their own state to play an OOC game since 1991

Van wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:Take OSU off of Michigan's schedule and then re-rank it. Still a bogus 13th??

Well I’m sure it wouldn’t fall to 75th. Gee, if you took Cal and Arkansas off of USC’s schedule, do you suppose it would still rank 3rd toughest? Don't be such a tard.

Dumbass, USC BEAT Cal and Arkansas!! Michigan LOST to the the team that's most responsible for giving them their bogus S.O.S. ranking! You wanna give 'em credit for that???

You're pegging the Mace Meter right now.

OK, let’s review. You keep suggesting that Michigan has a weak schedule. I point out a place where their schedule is ranked 13th toughest in the nation. You claim that’s largely because tOSU is on their schedule. I point out that just having tOSU on their schedule is not enough to pull the ranking up to 13th, look at Texas. You say take tOSU off of Michigan’s schedule and it wouldn’t be 13th. No shit, Sherlock. I say do the same for USC and their SOS won’t be third best. You say USC beat Cal and Arkansas. I say you’re a fucking idiot.

Michigan’s opponents were a combined 83-61. If you back out their results against Michigan, they’re 82-50 against the rest of CFB. Seven of their opponents are going to bowl games, including two to BCS bowls and two to other January 1 bowl games. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a weak schedule. You make Mace look like a genius.

Goober, yes, compared to USC's and Florida's it is a weak schedule, which is exactly how it's been described all over the nation by the people debating the title game credentials of the various one loss teams. Specifically, their OOC schedule, the one they controlled. Their OOC schedule has been ripped from pillar to post.

That IS what this is all about, remember?? Comparing schedules, trying to pick between teams with equal W-L records? Michigan's schedule has been deemed weak in comparison to the two other teams vying for the same prize and it's largely due to the fact that they lost to the one team that truly gave them a decent S.O.S...

Is their schedule Boise St weak? Wisconsin weak? No, it isn't. Is it hurting their chance at going to the title game? Yup, it is, along with a couple of other factors...

Van, it is not a weak schedule. OOC was Vandy (a weak SEC team), Central Michigan (won their division in the MAC), Notre Dame (probable BCS team) and Ball State (middle of the road MAC team, added at last minute). Is the overall SOS weaker than USC’s? Of course. That’s true of most any team in CFB. Weaker than Florida’s? I haven’t been hearing that one, and Sagarin has Florida at 27th toughest.

BTW, I do not want to see a UM-tOSU rematch. I’m fine with USC being tOSU’s final victim this year. But I still believe that regardless of SOS, Michigan is a better team than USC. And you’ll find out about Wisconsin in the Capital One Bowl. They’ll probably get either Arkansas or Florida, and I’ll bet on Wisconsin coming out on top. With a little bit of luck, Big 10 could wind up 1-2-3.

:wink:

Cliche time!

"We shall see..."

(I'm NOT expecting big things out of the Pac 10 this bowl season. Besides maybe Oregon St I could easily see the Pac 10 losing every game! Beating Ohio St may end up being the Pac 10's best hope for a win! How fucked up is that?? Even UCLA, all they have to do is beat D.O.A. FSU, in California...Dunno...

Then again, since the pressure's off after they choked away all their big games and their big dreams watch Cal go ahead and win one now that they're back under the radar and playing with their usual low expectations...)

If you don't like all the various bowl games, then don't watch 'em. That's pretty simple.

These days most of the bowl games are nothing more than a reward for any team that has a winning record. I don't really see anything wrong with that. If you're trying to equate this system with some kind of national playoff, it just won't work. The idea of replacing it with a playoff system, even if only, say, 8 teams are involved is pretty much a non-starter. That would make a 14 or 15 game season for the eventual winner. Remember this is supposed to be college football. You know, with "student-athletes"? Yeah, I know, that's laughable but some schools actually take that distinction seriously. With a four team playoff you'd still get the same arguments about who gets the fourth spot.

Maybe there should be a Division 1-AP and a 1-AS. No, not named after ZZ or Advanced Placement but a "professional" division where there are no academic requirements at all, and a "student" divison where they still have to go to school. Division 1-AP could spend unlimited amounts of $$ on hiring Steve Spurrier, pay their players and draw huge crowds for the glory of the school, and play as many games as they want. Division 1-AS could go back to the idea of "student-athlete" and be more participatory.

Mikey wrote:If you're trying to equate this system with some kind of national playoff, it just won't work. The idea of replacing it with a playoff system, even if only, say, 8 teams are involved is pretty much a non-starter. That would make a 14 or 15 game season for the eventual winner. Remember this is supposed to be college football. You know, with "student-athletes"? Yeah, I know, that's laughable but some schools actually take that distinction seriously. With a four team playoff you'd still get the same arguments about who gets the fourth spot.

March Madness goes three weekends with 65 teams (that after a week of conference tournaments) and nobody complains about the impact on academics there. I've said this before and I'll say it again one more time: 16-team playoff starting December 31. There's your answer, right there.

The impact on academics is minimal. First semester finals are over before the playoff starts. Most schools are out on Christmas break during the bulk of the playoffs, and by the time most schools resume classes, your down to four teams, anyway.

Disagree with those who contend that this renders the regular season meaningless. If anything, I think you'll see more compelling OOC matchups during the regular season, as a single loss (or even a second loss) wouldn't necessarily cost any given team a playoff berth. Alternatively, you could make this a twelve-team format, giving the top four seeds first-round byes.

Maybe there should be a Division 1-AP and a 1-AS. No, not named after ZZ or Advanced Placement but a "professional" division where there are no academic requirements at all, and a "student" divison where they still have to go to school. Division 1-AP could spend unlimited amounts of $$ on hiring Steve Spurrier, pay their players and draw huge crowds for the glory of the school, and play as many games as they want. Division 1-AS could go back to the idea of "student-athlete" and be more participatory.

Problem with this suggestion is that some schools have elements of both. Being a ND alum, I can see ND torn between such a distinction, and especially its fan base would be torn.

Plus One. Two teams and two teams only play one extra game, at the same time they're already playing this year's separate title game. Couldn't be easier. Couldn't provide more finality.

Van wrote:Plus One. Two teams and two teams only play one extra game, at the same time they're already playing this year's separate title game. Couldn't be easier. Couldn't provide more finality.

So would you pair UofM and UF (assuming they win the SEC championship) in a bowl to see who comes out as the other one loss team? And if there was a system where the plus one was mandatory, what if all hell breaks loose and UofM loses to LSU, USC loses to OSU, UF loses to ND. Then you have UofM, LSU, USC, UF and ND as all 2 loss teams fighting over the spot to get to the plus one.

USC and OSU play in the Rose Bowl.

Florida (or Arkansas) as the champs of their conference host Michigan (who didn't win their conference) in the Sugar, which I'd move to Atlanta as its permanent home..

Winners play each other in the Superdome, which I'd make the permanent home of both the NCAA title game and the Super Bowl. Nothing left to debate. Done.

Woulda worked in '04, '03 and any other "controversy" year. By the end of the regular season we've NEVER had more than four teams in the BCS era (or any other era, really) with a true claim to the title game. We don't need more than four teams, and Plus One. It wouldn't even require a reshuffling of time tables, traditional bowl games or anything else. Nobody's "turf" is in jeopardy. We retain what he have now, we restore the traditional bowl match ups (a little more, at least) and our current separate title game will simply match the winners of the two key traditional bowls.

Hardly any different, and easy to implement, but infinitely better, with real closure.

Mikey wrote:Remember this is supposed to be college football. You know, with "student-athletes"? Yeah, I know, that's laughable but some schools actually take that distinction seriously.

What a ludicrous statement. The lower divisions have a playoff, and those kids are taking academics a tad more seriously than those at USC, OU, and FSU considering 99% of them won't be targeting a career in the NFL.

There is still 1 BIG HUGE FUCKIN PROBLEM with a "plus one" system

You are giving teams 4-7 weeks to prepare for a SEMI Final game and then in 1 week they have to turn around and prepare to play in the FINAL. In what world does this make sense?

SCTN, so what? It'll only involve two teams and it'll stress 'em equally and they're used to playing back to back weeks anyway.

It's the least invasive procedure possible for correcting what ails this deal. It's actually possible, for one thing. Most other suggestions involve far too much change. Never gonna happen.

Plus One is do-able; the most do-able. Plus One plus mandatory balanced schedules and this shit is fixed; as fixed as it ever could be.

One problem with your balanced schedule proposition is that not only will it eliminate one or two home games for most major programs, it will also increase their travel costs. Especially when they have to fly cross-country at the NCAA’s discretion. Would probably do more damage to non-income-producing sports than Title IX ever did.

Goober McTuber wrote:One problem with your balanced schedule proposition is that not only will it eliminate one or two home games for most major programs,

That's the goal. It's not only NOT a problem, it's a glorious development! Fair play and competitive integrity, at last!!

it will also increase their travel costs.

Only for teams who've gotten used to never traveling. That's a luxury they never should've been afforded in the first place. They'll adjust. Plenty of other teams already manage it just fine.

Especially when they have to fly cross-country at the NCAA’s discretion. Would probably do more damage to non-income-producing sports than Title IX ever did.

I wouldn't suggest that the NCAA actually create the schedules. I'd leave that to the individual programs. Have no fear, Georgia will still manage to never travel beyond the cozy confines of the southeast U.S. They'll add Bermuda Tech, Havana A&M and Northwest Bahamas St, if need be. All I want from the NCAA is a rule mandating balanced schedules, with no D-1AA teams included on the schedules of D-1A teams.

SoCalTrjn wrote:There is still 1 BIG HUGE FUCKIN PROBLEM with a "plus one" system

You are giving teams 4-7 weeks to prepare for a SEMI Final game and then in 1 week they have to turn around and prepare to play in the FINAL. In what world does this make sense?

In a world where final exams consume a significant portion of the 4-7 week period you're complaining about.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:There is still 1 BIG HUGE FUCKIN PROBLEM with a "plus one" system

You are giving teams 4-7 weeks to prepare for a SEMI Final game and then in 1 week they have to turn around and prepare to play in the FINAL. In what world does this make sense?

In a world where final exams consume a significant portion of the 4-7 week period you're complaining about.

How would it be any different than it is now? You'd have the same layoff between the regular season and the bowl games. You'd have the same extra game one week after all the other bowl games. Nothing would change. If kids can manage their final exams during the layoff now then they'd be able to manage them under this system too, especially since the change only involves two teams total playing only one extra game.

Van wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:There is still 1 BIG HUGE FUCKIN PROBLEM with a "plus one" system

You are giving teams 4-7 weeks to prepare for a SEMI Final game and then in 1 week they have to turn around and prepare to play in the FINAL. In what world does this make sense?

In a world where final exams consume a significant portion of the 4-7 week period you're complaining about.

How would it be any different than it is now? You'd have the same layoff between the regular season and the bowl games. You'd have the same extra game one week after all the other bowl games. Nothing would change. If kids can manage their final exams during the layoff now then they'd be able to manage them under this system too, especially since the change only involves two teams total playing only one extra game.

Actually, Van, I think you misread what I was saying.

SoCalTrjn asked in what world does it make sense that a team would have 4-7 weeks before what is effectively a semifinal matchup, then only one week before the final. I merely responded, in effect, that his contention is irrelevant, because finals take place before the semifinal matchup, which prevents or at least limits practices during that time. Essentially, I was defending your position against this particular attack.

As a practical matter, however, imho Plus One would not be a long-term option, for one reason and one reason alone: money. If the NCAA ever does open the door to a playoff, I think a playoff has huge financial implications, and once the NCAA sees that, they will probably want to make the playoff as big as possible. That means 16 teams, realistically.

Another reason I favor a 16-team playoff is to make the postseason more meaningful. As it is, under the status quo we have one meaningful game and 31 glorified consolation matchups. Yes, I know many suggest cutting the number of bowl games, but let's be realistic about one thing: the bowl games will never be cut to the point where any of the Top 16 are left out (unless they want to be, that is -- I could see Notre Dame returning to its previous policy regarding bowl games if the games were ever cut to that point, but ND is the exception here, not the rule.) If the Top 16 teams are going to play regardless, they should play in a game that has some meaning. At least imho . . .