BCS was better

[BoilerBiker]

way better. (oh hey, head to head now matters in the final week only, pffff).
big 12 will probably add 2 schools and a conf. title game asap.

i think they want 4 teams only for talk, controversy, and ratings.
6 or 8 teams is perfect for 5 conf. champs getting auto bids in either format - but that wouldnt give them anything to talk about.

 

[Pub1986]

WWOOWW, what lunacy! Last week you drop the undefeated, 28 game in a row winning, Heisman trophy QBing, out of conf scheduling of Okla St/ND/FLA, defending national champs to 4th behind TCU. Then today you hop OSU over TCU after Whisky lays down like a cheap hooker? WOW.

 

[loftygoal]

As crazy as it may be, this is great news for the B1G and Purdue recruiting. The message is clear: If you want the opportunity to play in the playoffs and play with the big dogs this is a conference that you need to play in.

 

[Frankie611]

Beautifully said and I agree.

Originally posted by Pub1986:
WWOOWW, what lunacy! Last week you drop the undefeated, 28 game in a row winning, Heisman trophy QBing, out of conf scheduling of Okla St/ND/FLA, defending national champs to 4th behind TCU. Then today you hop OSU over TCU after Whisky lays down like a cheap hooker? WOW.

 

[Tommaker]

I think you're being kind of insulting to all of the cheap hookers out there.

Still, I'm not totally shocked. They know which of the conferences has the largest alumni/fan base, and they need as much of that as possible in the inaugural. No offense to the Big 12, but if Texas isn't playing, who's watching?

 

[njm8845]

Oklahoma still brings a lot of eyeballs.

But point taken - OSU probably has 10x the fanbase that TCU and Baylor have together.

I also think that we've taken a step back from the BCS era. Right now this isn't much different to how teams were ranked 80 years ago. At least in the BCS era we tried to input a little objectivity and sabermetrics. Why not just keep that system and expand to a 4 team playoff?

I heartily disagree with the 8 team playoff. I understand how it'd be clean cut for every conference to have a seat at the playoff, but who says that's a good thing? I cared way more about the games yesterday than if half the teams were guaranteed a place. There would never be confusion between the 8th best team in the country and the best. However, there may be confusion between #4 and #1. No real need for 8 teams.

Maybe instead of complaining TCU and Baylor should schedule more big name teams and play a conference championship.

 

[lbodel]

I don't think it had anything to do with fan base.

The fact of the matter was if they ranked TCU 4th last week and Ohio State 5th, as they should have, and explained these teams are neck and neck, then the controversy would not be as great.

Instead, they wanted to look different than the polls and show how powerful they are by bumping FSU down and TCU jumping up - but it screwed them.

What would also help if if their committee consisted of professionals, not people looking for something to do.

 

[lbodel]

Why anyone thought this would be less controversial and smoother than the BCS is beyond me. I had no idea that the top 2 teams got to pick their sites until the other day. While I think that's cool, I also think it's common sense ala the NCAA Tournament will select the closest locations for the top seeds.

Also, I agree on not having an 8 team playoff. For one, look at the championship game attendance - it typically struggles (the PAC 12 Championship was a great match-up and hardly anyone there...the Big Ten struggles to reach capacity with Ohio State/Wisconsin playing...etc.).

But that being said, I think championship games are a sham themselves. It's hard to really figure it out though with all of the conference expansion. For example, the top 2 teams can very well be within a division. And they could play in September - or they could play in November.

Overall, four is a tough cut-off point in college football these days. The BCS actually had very little controversy other than manufactured. Eight is just too much - I'd rather add another conference game for everyone than do 3 weeks of college football playoffs (not to mention that added practice time would be huge compared to even teams going to bowl games).

That being said, the only plus in all of this is that hopefully non-conference games will improve. But the downside to having 4 teams is that most teams know they will not compete for a spot. I'd much rather have bowls be treated more seriously than what is best marketing wise. If a team knew they were going to be selected based on quality of play, SOS, etc. and maybe you have a committee select those games, that would do more to improve the bowl system than anything.

 

[lbodel]

I don't think there's any breaking news in this. Big Ten is always considered one of the better conferences, even though it may not be "up to the" SEC. It's not like suddenly recruits will respect the Big Ten cause it got a team in the playoffs. The Big Ten had more berths in the BCS than any conference (yes, including the SEC).

Yeah, it's obviously better to have a Big Ten team in this than not, but I don't think it's going to impact recruiting at all.

 

[loftygoal]

Given the outcomes of the games on Saturday, there should not have been any change to the top 4; TCU should be livid. It's not like Wisky was a top 10 team that OSU creamed. And I do think that it is a surprise that OSU was moved up after the way the media has downplayed the B1G all season. This playoff system is better than all of the crummy bowl games we've had in the recent past; I wish they'd make it 8 teams starting the Xmas weekend. And it does look like we'll get some additional fun bowl games this year with TCU and Baylor playing the Miss schools. The only thing missing is us being part of the fun.

 

[College Basketball]

Whisky might not have been a surprise to you. But it was to the experts in Vegas that built all those casinos. They had Whisky as a 4.5 point favorite. Safe to say OSU covered!

 

[lbodel]

TCU has a right to be livid because of what the committee did placing them as #3. That should never have happened. It should have been TCU #4, Ohio State #5 - and given the talking to the media the committee did, explain it's a close call between the two.

Wisconsin was highly ranked according to the committee themselves, so it would make sense in the end, given them being neck and neck, that Ohio State would jump them given their dominating performance.

However, it's not like FSU really put their "shakiness" to bed either. Not sure why that would suddenly jump TCU either.

As someone else mentioned, maybe they shouldn't release the rankings every week. It's not like you're going to change your game plan for the week. The goal is to always win.

 

[njm8845]

I think they release the rankings weekly to give people something else to talk about. Any press about their product is good.
I certainly paid attention to them throughout the season. Although maybe now I won't given their inconsistencies.

Agreed that the committee screwed themselves by putting TCU at #3 last week.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Originally posted by lbodel:
That being said, the only plus in all of this is that hopefully non-conference games will improve.

thats great for the power 5 conferences, but wouldn't that just eventually eliminate the need for any little 5 conferences?
if no one's wanting to schedule as many (or even any) mac/sun belt/etc, it seems like they'll become the new division 1-AA by default.
maybe thats what the power 5 thinks they want, but i'm not sure how much that is really sustainable(?).

 

[db]

I like the 6 team idea

Kinda like the NFL conf championships. 5 spots reserved for Big 5 conf., however they want to determine their representative, and one at-large based on some objective criteria. A very different selection system. The play-in games could be one or two weeks after the conf. champ games.

 

[College Basketball]

Re: I like the 6 team idea

Many fans don't understand that the weekly ratings are not the same as the past. They explained all year that it was fluid. Top 4 each Tuesday night was at that point in time and no speculation to the future.

Stating that the Big 12 was screwed because of not having a conference champ or teams need to schedule better are not necessarily true. Big 12 could very easily have had two in if FSU and OSU had lost.

All the talk about "the worst loss" for OSU (VTech) could have been avoided if OSU had played Youngstown St. There are so many scenarios.

 

[boiler17]

I loved the way it worked out. I wouldnt have had a problem with TCY, Baylor, or OSU in the 4th spot. If youre power 5 and go undefeated, you have a lock on a playoff spot. If youre not power 5, I dont want to watch you. If youre not undefeated, you leave your fate to chance.

I think wherever your cut off point is, is where national chatter will center around. I love having it so high because there is legitimate debate/attention paid to the 1-6 spots and that keeps me watching more. A cut off of 8 would center most attention around 7-10 spots and be much less fun. I could get down with the top 6 with top seed byes, but thats my absolute limit. Any expansion would make me nervous they will move to top 16 or something and kill the last truely relevant regular season in sports.

 

[lbodel]

Re: I like the 6 team idea

But that's part of the problem. What's the point in releasing rankings each week that are "fluid" with no speculation to the future? There's no point. It also makes little sense and to expect people not to look at it that way is silly.

Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament operated like that? It'd be a mess.

 

[JHetfield99]

Re: I like the 6 team idea

Originally posted by lbodel:
But that's part of the problem. What's the point in releasing rankings each week that are "fluid" with no speculation to the future? There's no point. It also makes little sense and to expect people not to look at it that way is silly.

Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament operated like that? It'd be a mess.

This is easy, tv ratings for ESPN (who is paying a bundle for the playoff) and subsequently a very easy thing to use to fill 4+ hours a day of programming on all of their inane debate shows of drivel, and more hours than that or ESPN radio drivel, especially their top-rated show Mike and Mike.

And don't forget, that show effectively sets the national sports agenda talking list each week due to their reach (they are syndicated in every damn major and minor sports market), meaning it's another form of power over the industry.

 

[boiler17]

Re: I like the 6 team idea

Originally posted by JHetfield99:

Originally posted by lbodel:
But that's part of the problem. What's the point in releasing rankings each week that are "fluid" with no speculation to the future? There's no point. It also makes little sense and to expect people not to look at it that way is silly.

Could you imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament operated like that? It'd be a mess.

This is easy, tv ratings for ESPN (who is paying a bundle for the playoff) and subsequently a very easy thing to use to fill 4+ hours a day of programming on all of their inane debate shows of drivel, and more hours than that or ESPN radio drivel, especially their top-rated show Mike and Mike.

And don't forget, that show effectively sets the national sports agenda talking list each week due to their reach (they are syndicated in every damn major and minor sports market), meaning it's another form of power over the industry.

Agree, but I take a less cynical take on it. I love watching college football, but struggle to gain legitimate interest outside the big ten. This year, I was very aware of what was going on because I could connect the conferences through all the top 4 talk.

We have outlined the cons of the fluid ranking approach they are taking, but I have also long disliked the way a team is ranked at a certain number, they win unimpressively, and hold on to the spot in the old system and how much of a role those rankings had in the BCS.

My personal preference would be to have teams rated as they have been this season, and just that as the poll used in the BCS and just take the first four.

 

[College Basketball]

Actually, BCS would have had the same results according to this.

http://collegespun.com/big-ten/ohio-state/heres-what-the-final-bcs-standings-would-have-looked-like

 

[boiler17]

Ha. Thats pretty cool. I wasnt saying I wish they used BCS cause I thought they choose the wrong team. To me, any of Baylor, OSU, and TCU would have been fine. I just prefer something data driven as opposed to human/debate driven.

Definitely dont want automatic conference winner spots.

 

[College Basketball]

Actually, I love the idea that we are back to the way it used to be of having great bowl games on New Year's Day versus lately how Rose was Jan 1, maybe the Sugar two nights later, and then the Orange two nights after that etc.

I also like the way they have some good games on Dec 30/31 plus #5 versus #8 and #6 versus #9.

 

[Born Boiler]

The committee wound up getting it right.



Baylor actually beat TCU and outgained the Frogs by 300 yards in doing it. Head-to-head results should always matter more than hogwash.

But neither of those second-tier wannabes can compare to Ohio State riding a third-string QB to a 59-0 championship, light years better than running it up from a 17-3 third-quarter lead over twice-victorious Iowa State.



If anything, the committee vastly undersold the value of a perfect record. Undefeated is undefeated, and a 29-game winning streak shouldn't have to take a backseat to anyone. Beat them, then talk about close calls.



As for hogwash, how 'bout the SEC being a pure hype machine? Their league runner-up lost to a Big Ten cellar team. Heck, even we can make that claim. And what will the Ducks do when they can't beat weak sisters at home any more?



Our league's representatives need to play only half as well as they did against Wisconsin, and they'll beat everyone there like a preschool drum.

 

[loftygoal]

I hope you're right. If it's good for the B1G it's good for us. And I think OSU's selection is great for the B1G and us. I think Het's right that this weekly top 4 selection program was strictly about building interest and TV ratings. OSU needs to beat AL to silence the SEC hype machine if only for this winter.

 

[lbodel]

I understand the motive, not saying it's right though is what I'm pointing out. The NCAA basketball selection committee obviously has some angry teams here and there, but for the most part it does a very good job. This football committee seems like a bunch of egos who want attention and there are some people on the committee that seem like they got it cause they're a celebrity.

Quite frankly, this year they lucked out. For example, they didn't have to deal with conferences having 2 bids. For example, last year Alabama and Auburn played in the last regular season week. Auburn won. Auburn then won their division/SEC Championship game. Auburn's in. What about Alabama? Do you put them back in there even though they just played? And I don't even think that's a great example. You very well could end up with 2 teams playing in a championship game in the SEC for example - if the #1 team barely loses to the #2 team, do you eliminate them from the playoff?

 

[boiler17]

Originally posted by lbodel:
I understand the motive, not saying it's right though is what I'm pointing out. The NCAA basketball selection committee obviously has some angry teams here and there, but for the most part it does a very good job. This football committee seems like a bunch of egos who want attention and there are some people on the committee that seem like they got it cause they're a celebrity.

Quite frankly, this year they lucked out. For example, they didn't have to deal with conferences having 2 bids. For example, last year Alabama and Auburn played in the last regular season week. Auburn won. Auburn then won their division/SEC Championship game. Auburn's in. What about Alabama? Do you put them back in there even though they just played? And I don't even think that's a great example. You very well could end up with 2 teams playing in a championship game in the SEC for example - if the #1 team barely loses to the #2 team, do you eliminate them from the playoff?

This does bother me. I dont care for the egos of Alvarez or Osborne either. Ive come to accept that people successful enough to get to something like that usually have unpleasantly large egos. Its guys passing a leather ball around. Wooooo.