I'm quite sick of your whining on these issues. Aside from wins and losses, there are also observation whether a team is playing impressive or not. Outside of OU, Michigan and USC are playing most inspiring football right now. Anyone who saw the games and has an objective mind would agree. (that's how a media POLL works). Miami has not only two losses, but was not impressive in its wins also. 17-10 over Syracuse, 22-20 over WVU, and lost 31-7 to Vtech? Not to mention back to back losses in Nov. Open your eyes, and stop complaining.
Right now the polls are right on in the top 4-- OU 1, USC 2, LSU 3 & OSU 4. OU is obvious. I admit the case between USC and LSU gets difficult. Both have been dominanting on the field. Both have beat top 10 teams. If LSU beats Miss and the SEC east champ they have as good as case as any team outside of OU as they will be the 1 loss team from the 2nd best conference. Nontheless USC has a great case for 2 as well. They had one close game, which they lost in OT, but have just been dominating except for that, including against top 10 WSU. Still, my honest option is USC is the 2nd best team--it is not their fault some opponents have had off years--the bottom line is they have not just beaten but destroyed who they have played, and IMO that carries a lot more weight than speaking by every week against mediocre to good teams. OSU--clearly #4. Lose to Wisc. Win in OT no less at home versus NCState and Purdue. Squeak by the terrible Penn State, squeak by San Diego State, squeak by Bowling Green--shoot the Buckeye have hardly a real impressive win on their books. Comparing the portfolio with LSU or USC in their consistent dominance plus wins over top 10 teams which OSU has zero off--it takes a very convoluded system to put the Buckeyes at #2. Basically the system is just that convoluded. By limiting scoring margin from the computers--you basically make them strength of schedule factors X W-L records and minor tweeks more, thus OSU's schedule which looks good to many computers acts as a double count on SOS. Here is another totally screwy thing--LSU may beat Georgia again and lose ground. Why, because by beating an outstanding team twice they lose the bonus points. It just doesn't make any sense that if they play and beat Tenn they win big in the BCS, but if, Georgia they lose big time. These "bonus" calc need to be taken into account with the actual games between those team removed (say in computer polls). DS's recommendtions: 1) keep the Polls--some times they catch things computers don't. Same reason we don't have a computer program hire people, only assists in hiring. 2) enhance "super quality" wins against top 15 teams, and "quality wins" against top 30 teams, mix in a little road bonus factor (1-1.15) and home minus factor (.85-.9) for these as well. 3) include margin of victory in the computer polls. You can take the log transformation or square root of points, or limit it after 30, so as teams can't gain meaningully by really running it up--but it must in there. 4) include proportion of victory in the computers (just a tad though), surely 17-0 or 42-6 are generally showing greater dominance than 47-30 or 59-22. 5) subtract a little for overtime, or call it a 1 point victory.
I agree Michigan is better than Miami. That said you forgot LSU. They have been dominant and beat Georgia. The best teams are OU, USC, LSU, Mich than OSU--though of course OSU for now deserved the higher ranking because after all they do only have 1 loss. In truth I think Florida may be a top 5 team right now too, but they just don't deserve those rankings because of their 3 early season losses. I am a Texas fan, but given the fact they have given up 100 between TTech and OU--I do not see how any computer poll should have them smelling top 5. The belong where the polls have them, 7ish, no higher. Overall, I think it is pretty likely USC wins out, Michigan wins & LSU loses 1 time (they should beat little Manning, but still will play a very good team in the SEC final)--but if either the latter don't happen it is going to be ugly. Also, OU could lose as well Tech has a chance, KSU has a decent chance, as long as Missou doesn't upset KSU OU has two loseable games left--that would really throw things in the air where of all things Texas winning out saves OU.
Man, I have my fingers crossed. I hope a couple of the top 10 teams lose this week. Damn SMU, your like a hangnail that won't tear. A terd that won't flush. A light that stays red. Let's go Horned Frogs! Believe!
Yeah, but I bet it doesn't matter because the BCS will end up adding another Bowl to the mix and giving the Mountain West and Conference USA (or some variation thereof) automatic BCS bids. At least that's what I think the solution will end up being. To me, though, if the BCS doesn't eliminate subjectivity in their rankings (or do it's best to), then we really should just go to a system where the polls decide #1 and #2 and we go to a Championship from there. Why complicate it with formulas and the like if all it does it add complications rather than eliminate subjectivity from the rankings? If it's all about letting #1 play #2, then let #1 play #2. We don't need a fancy formula for that.
I dunno I think they may drop it down to 5 automatic bids (take out the Big East at some point) and have 3 at large bids which opens up another spot (in theory) to a TCU or Miami (Ohio) or other small conference team. I think the BCS would cost itself money by automatically adding 2 traditionally smaller conferences to teh BCS lineup. Again it's fine if TCU makes it (and earns a spot) and all 8 teams make $6M each but if suddently TCU and Miami (OH from MAC) make it and there is 10 teams each splitting $5M then I think the major conferences would have amajor problem. In addition I think people would travel from the TCU and Miami, OH to play a powerhouse team, but not sure how well they could draw if they played each other?
When was the last time a TWO LOSS team played in a championship game has that EVER happened in the modern era? Rocket River
Was the Nebraska team that got smoked in teh 1st or 2nd year of the BCS a 1 or 2 loss team (controversey yer with Oregon)? I remember they got throtteled in their finale and the BCS game but can't remember if they had lost earlier or not?
The season is not 10 games. It's 12 games. If the season was 10 games, then USC is #2. Since it's 12 games, USC may or may not be #2. The regular season is the playoffs. You play the best teams and get rewarded for it. And when the ENTIRE season is completed, let the records stand for itself and how each team played against the competition. The BCS is about getting the top 2 teams for the championship and making matchups that people want to see. The major bowls has always been about getting the biggest draws. I'm sure more people would rather watch a 6-6 Notre Dame than an undefeated TCU play.
No they didn't lose earlier. They just got smoked by Colorado 62-36 and in my and many other opinions should not have played in the title game. That privledge should have went to Oregon, in my belief. Remember though Colorado was #4 in the BCS rankings with 2 losses so they very well could have played for the title game.
Nebraska had lost 1 game, to CU. Oregon had lost 1 game. Some people were saying CU should go since they beat NU and then avenged their loss to Texas B12 final--but CU did have two loses to Texas and one other game at the beginning of the year. I think all 3 the above teams had reasonable cases and the points race was close if I remember but over the whole season IMO no doubt NU had the 2nd best portfolio to Miami (laid the 1st loss on OU, beat KSU, and dominated most everyone else). It didn't matter though, Miami would have kicked the sh*t out of any of the 3.
But the pressure is going to come down hard this off-season, and the government is getting involved. The fact that there were two at-large bids quelled anti-trust concerns in the past, but that doesn't seem to be placating the anti-trusters at this point. To head off government action, the BCS could add another Bowl to the mix. That's what I think they'll do to keep a anti-trust suit or Congressional action at bay.
Congress should not be getting involved with this. If they are, I assume the country and all it's issues are dealt with satisfactorily. The previous bowl system was never set up to allow everyone a chance at it. Many of the matchups were from traditional conferences. The BCS are private sponsors of these bowl games. They should be able to choose whomever they want. If they want to keep the peons out, that's their right. The way the BCS is set up and it's ongoing adjustments is the best set up possible with the type the money involved. What's the result that everyone is looking for? #1 playing #2. BCS gives us the best chance.
I agree that Congress should not get involved, but that doesn't mean they won't. The issue isn't the Championship match-up, really. The issue is the smaller conferences being shut out of the lucrative BCS Bowls when other conferences have automatic bids no matter how weak they are in any given year. The difference in the money between a BCS Bowl appearance and a non-BCS Bowl appearance is huge. And though the BCS is a private organization, it still has to play by anti-trust laws and rules. There is currently an attempt to show that the BCS is in violation of anti-trust by shutting these conferences out of the whole BCS mix. The at-large bids were supposed to head such actions off, but those at-large bids appear to some to be stacked against non-BCS conference teams. If TCU fails to get a BCS bid this year (and I know a lot of people don't think they deserve it, but if TCU finishes the season undefeated, they will be ranked higher than at least one BCS team in the AP poll, the USA Today poll, the computer rankings, and the BCS standings), it will be seen by many to go along way toward proving that the at-large bids aren't a way for non-BCS conference teams to get into a BCS Bowl.
As far as I can remember, the four major bowls were never open to them before the formation of the BCS. They should thank their lucky stars for even a minute chance. The reason why the smaller conferences are not a BCS conferences is because they're traditionally weak and the BCS doesn't want them. Most of these schools either have no winning tradition, commuter school, no fan support, no money, no political power, did something wrong, etc and cannot sustain a winning program. They don't bring anything to the table. If those teams in the smaller conferences were any good, they would be in a BCS conference. And even If TCU was added to the B12, they would be lumped in the bottom half with Baylor and Kansas. Would TCU even be favored if they played any of the top 25 schools?
