College Football - Nov 29th

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because some team you thought was great turned out to be only good? They should get another shot based on your subjective opinion as to their quality?

So you think that as a result of today that Cal is a better overall football team than USC?

Say if 3 teams go undefeated, I guess we'll go to 'objective' opinion? Oh wait, we don't have any 'objective' opinion. Why demean someone's subjective opinion on quality when you back the same things by backing the poll system .

Every game counts, even the "flukes."

And in the end the best teams don't meet on the field for the championship. But that's ok, that's why college football's "championship" is such a joke .

I doubt it.

Why? They seem like they end up losing to them every year.

[Drake Tungsten]

So you think that as a result of today that Cal is a better overall football team than USC?

They were today. That's why they play the games.

Say if 3 teams go undefeated, I guess we'll go to 'objective' opinion? Oh wait, we don't have any 'objective' opinion. Why demean someone's subjective opinion on quality when you back the same things by backing the poll system

The BCS system isn't perfect and some subjective decisions end up being required. That being said, it's still a hell of a lot better than any playoff would be.

And in the end the best teams don't meet on the field for the championship.

The teams who had the two best seasons usually do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They were today. That's why they play the games.

So in your poll Cal is ranked higher than USC? :hmm:

The BCS system isn't perfect and some subjective decisions end up being required. That being said, it's still a hell of a lot better than any playoff would be.

Bull****. In the playoff, you'd allow 8 teams (or more) to decide who is the best team in the country, instead of 2. Since every team can't play every team, a 4 or 8 (or even 16) playoff is infinetly better than a 2 team one.

The teams who had the two best seasons usually do.

Usually? So what happens when you have a situation like you did two years back when you have more than one team that has 1 loss vying for the last spot in the 'national championship'? How do you decide the 'best season'? It ends up being totally subjective.

Why is a 12-0 Miami team in the Big East better than a 12-1 Georgia team in the SEC? Who is better? Why is the Miami team better when the teams it plays aren't the teams that the Georgia team plays, and there is hardly any overlap between the two conferences at all?

Much better to exclude the 5th team or the 9th team rather than the 3rd. In that case you'd get rid of a 2 loss team rather than perhaps an undefeated or a 1 loss team.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What about the other USC
CAL 34 - USC 31

Yeah... WOW.. the Top 10 looks radically different this week. USC (3) and Iowa (9) both go down. USC stays in the Top 10, but Iowa definetly falls way out.

Not so sure about USC stayin in the top 10. They've really played an easy schedule so far as it seems Auburn isn't as good as people thought they were, and they lost to Cal, who for some odd reason, just has had their number the past 2 years.

Pete Carroll (sp?) can take the blame for the loss, but his team was beat on the field.

[Drake Tungsten]

So in your poll Cal is ranked higher than USC? :hmm:

I don't have a poll. Polls are stupid. I prefer to judge teams by their on-field performance, not some subjective determination of quality. If you go undefeated, you get a shot at the title. If you don't, too bad. No need for a poll.

Why is a 12-0 Miami team in the Big East better than a 12-1 Georgia team in the SEC?

Miami won all their games. Georgia didn't. Not too hard to figure out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Polls are stupid. I prefer to judge teams by their on-field performance, not some subjective determination of quality. If you go undefeated, you get a shot at the title. If you don't, too bad. No need for a poll.

And what if no one goes undefeated and 4 teams have 1 loss? What if you have 3 teams go undefeated? Without a 'subjective' determination who do you decide goes for the title? Answer, you CAN'T!

Miami won all their games. Georgia didn't. Not too hard to figure out.

Miami also played in a FAR weaker conference than Georgia and if you switched the teams, perhaps Georgia goes undefeated as well .

It is only easy to figure out for those who can't understand that in a 110+ league two teams in different conferences don't play anywhere near the same opponents.

In other sports, to balance out that obvious disparity between different divisions, you have a playoff.

In college football, a team with 1 loss from one conference may be worse than a 3 loss team from another conference because the quality of teams in those conferences. For example a 2 loss team last year who had the hardest schedule in college football could have been better than a 1 loss team that had a 30th-40th hardest schedule... because they don't play the same teams at all and their conferences have a vast disparity in talent.

[SuperSneak]

That Oregon WSU game was brutal. I don't think I've ever seen such a one-sided game.
The Ducks were totally disjointed and gift wrapped the ball about 142 times to the WSU defense.
U-G-L-Y.
The Pac 10 champion could be just about anybody at this stage...sheesh. What a crazy year for ranked teams.

[Drake Tungsten]

And what if no one goes undefeated and 4 teams have 1 loss?

Then none of them truly deserve the title. Two of them will luck out and get a shot, but it isn't the real thing, in my mind at least.

What if you have 3 teams go undefeated?

Ah, the Achilles heel of the current system. Good thing it doesn't happen very often.

Without a 'subjective' determination who do you decide goes for the title? Answer, you CAN'T!

I already admitted that some subjectivity is required. It still has a lot fewer subjective decisions than a playoff would.

In college football, a team with 1 loss from one conference may be worse than a 3 loss team from another conference because the quality of teams in those conferences. For example a 2 loss team last year who had the hardest schedule in college football could have been better than a 1 loss team that had a 30th-40th hardest schedule... because they don't play the same teams at all and their conferences have a vast disparity in talent.

Your problem is that you think that the national title in college football is meant to go to the best team. It isn't, as it's almost impossible to determine who the best team is out of 110 candidates. College football rewards the best season instead, which is an actually workable system.

[badams52]

I don't have a poll. Polls are stupid. I prefer to judge teams by their on-field performance, not some subjective determination of quality. If you go undefeated, you get a shot at the title. If you don't, too bad. No need for a poll.

Why is a 12-0 Miami team in the Big East better than a 12-1 Georgia team in the SEC?

Miami won all their games. Georgia didn't. Not too hard to figure out.

Okay, let's take Michigan and every year let's have them play all the teams in the WAC and add on a couple in the MAC for good measure and how many years do you think they would wind up with an undefeated record?

I don't like polls either, but Miami being in the Big East has given them a much easier road to become national champions.

If you play weak teams (as Nebraska and Oklahoma used to do when the Big 8 was more like the Big 2) then you have an easier time of being undefeated and an easier task of being the national champ.

Say what you will, but strength of schedule is very important in determining season records, especially when you only play 12-13 games a year.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't like polls either, but Miami being in the Big East has given them a much easier road to become national champions.

Very true, but the Big East is just barely good enough for me to respect it and their non-conference schedule is usually pretty packed.

The new, bad-ass ACC makes this complaint a thing of the past, however. Yeah for super conferences.

Say what you will, but strength of schedule is very important in determining season records, especially when you only play 12-13 games a year.

I agree. I just figured that a minimum strength of schedule requirement went without saying.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then none of them truly deserve the title. Two of them will luck out and get a shot, but it isn't the real thing, in my mind at least.

How can you have a sport that doesn't give a national championship every year? When MLB went on strike people thought that was a joke, can you imagine a league that doesn't guarentee a national champion?!

Ah, the Achilles heel of the current system. Good thing it doesn't happen very often.

And what if it does? Then you have major problems, especially if you are saying the championship is 'objective'. If you just continue to say the national championship doesn't mean anything and is totally subjective then this doesn't matter.

Your problem is that you think that the national title in college football is meant to go to the best team.

Isn't the point of declaring a NATIONAL CHAMPION is to declare that this is the best TEAM?! Call it the 'National Championship Season' then .

Very true, but the Big East is just barely good enough for me to respect it and their non-conference schedule is usually pretty packed.

The new, bad-ass ACC makes this complaint a thing of the past, however. Yeah for super conferences.

So what if a team such as BYU or Syracuse goes undefeated next year and NO other team goes undefeated? You wouldn't mind a BYU/Syracuse national championship? After all they would be the only undefeated teams.

I agree. I just figured that a minimum strength of schedule requirement went without saying.

You want it as minimum as possible (basically preventing any 'minor' conference from having a chance... creating a 1-A(a) and a 1-A(b))

[Drake Tungsten]

Then you have major problems, especially if you are saying the championship is 'objective'.

When did I say it was "objective"? I said it was less subjective than a playoff. It's not even worth talking to you if you're going to misrepresent my arguments, especially when I went over this all ad nauseum with Ming last year.

Isn't the point of declaring a NATIONAL CHAMPION is to declare that this is the best TEAM?!

No.

So what if a team such as BYU or Syracuse goes undefeated next year and NO other team goes undefeated? You wouldn't mind a BYU/Syracuse national championship? After all they would be the only undefeated teams.

If they were the only two undefeated teams, I wouldn't mind at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said it was less subjective than a playoff. It's not even worth talking to you if you're going to misrepresent my arguments, especially when I went over this all ad nauseum with Ming last year.

Yes, when he whipped your ass .

The reason advances for the BCS was that it was an objective way to pick the winner. Nevertheless, how is a two game national championship LESS subjective than a playoff when you have so many different conferences in 1-A football? You need to have a larger playoff in order to filter out which team is the best and had the best season, while accounting for their totally different schedules. How much do you factor in a strength of schedule calculation anyway?

No.

Um yes. Is OSU the national championship team or the team that had the national championship season? Don't be daft, by winning the 'National Championship' they are considered the best team.

If they were the only two undefeated teams, I wouldn't mind at all.

What an utterly silly statement.

So you were pissed when 13-0 Toledo didn't go to the National Championship game?

[Drake Tungsten]

You need to have a larger playoff in order to filter out which team is the best and had the best season, while accounting for their totally different schedules. How much do you factor in a strength of schedule calculation anyway?

How exactly does a playoff help filter out which team had the best season? It doesn't; it just lets you determine who the hottest team at the end of the season is. This isn't necessarily the best team, or the team with the best season.

How much do you factor in a strength of schedule calculation anyway?

I like the weight given to it in the BCS formula.

Is OSU the national championship team or the team that had the national championship season?

They're the team that had the best season, which is the same as being the national championship team.

Don't be daft, by winning the 'National Championship' they are considered the best team.

I don't consider OSU to have been the best team last year. They got a lot of lucky breaks and I still think Miami would've beat them 8 or 9 games out of 10. This doesn't matter, however. They had the best season and are therefore the national champions, based on how they played, not my or anyone else's subjective opinion of how good they are. A wonderful system.

So you were pissed when 13-0 Toledo didn't go to the National Championship game?

Not really, but Toledo hardly plays a schedule as tough as BYU's or Syracuse's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How exactly does a playoff help filter out which team had the best season? It doesn't; it just lets you determine who the hottest team at the end of the season is. This isn't necessarily the best team, or the team with the best season.

Isn't the team that wins the National Championship game the 'hottest team'? What if a 1 loss team beats an undefeated team? Didn't the undefeated team have the best season according to you?

A playoff would allow conferences that have harder competition to not miss out on the National Championship because teams in easier conferences can win out.

I like the weight given to it in the BCS formula.

I think it should be drastically increased. SoS between the big conferences really doesn't matter that much at all.

They're the team that had the best season, which is the same as being the national championship team.

No, they are the best team, which is the same as being the National Championship team.

Saying the National Champion means the team with the best season instead of the best team, is very counterintuitive. When the NFL calls its SuperBowl winner 'NFL Champions' is it saying that team had the best season? Nope, they are saying that is the best team. To say the 'National Champion' isn't the best team, but the team with the best overall season is an utterly silly argument.

They had the best season and are therefore the national champions, based on how they played, not my or anyone else's subjective opinion of how good they are. A wonderful system.

A horrible system. A 'National Champion' means the best team. If you think the best team didn't win, then the BCS failed.

The best system in college sports, by FAR, is the NCAA college basketball tournament. It isn't even close.

Not really, but Toledo hardly plays a schedule as tough as BYU's or Syracuse's.

And BYU and Syracuse play no where near a schedule as tough as USC and OU. So?