College Football - The Bowls!

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah... they finished second because they lost their most important game of the season to date.

It wasn't the most important game of the season. They knew going into it that they didn't even have to win to go to the national championship game. It was irrelevant, except for bragging rights, which probably explains the lack of focus they showed.

Frankly, I would rather reward teams that can at least win their own conference... I don't think that's asking too much of a "National Champion"

So would I. As you should remember, I don't think any team that fails to go undefeated is truly worthy of being National Champion.

[TCO]

This is called the HAHAHAHAHAHA method of argument.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It wasn't the most important game of the season. They knew going into it that they didn't even have to win to go to the national championship game. It was irrelevant, except for bragging rights, which probably explains the lack of focus they showed.

Please tell all the Oklahoma fans how the Big 12 Championship is irrelevant. I don't think rewarding a team that you seem to think GAVE UP in a game a chance at a national championship.

So would I.

HUH.... you are claiming that a team that finishes second in their own conference should be given a chance for a national championshop.... so no, you aren't agreeing... you are saying that second best is good enough for a shot at the gold.

[Drake Tungsten]

HUH.... you are claiming that a team that finishes second in their own conference should be given a chance for a national championshop....

No, what I'm saying is that, if you insist on having a system where two teams must meet for the national title even if there are no unbeateans, then you need an objective way to choose whichof the once-beatens get to play. Simply picking the teams that lost first is not objective in the least and I'm glad the BCS has attempted to get away from such a simplistic and unfair process.

It's also unfair to punish teams that play in conference championship games, which you seem to be all to happy to do. Until all conferences play title games, a loss in one shouldn't automatically disqualify you from a shot at the title.

If I had my choice, however, they wouldn't award a national title to an team with a loss. I know that's never going to happen, however, so I do try to argue within the bounds of reality.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by TCO
actually teams in college have way more control of strength of schedule than teams in the pros. In any case, regardless of their control, their is more accomplishment in defeating a tougher slate.

A huge crock. Schedules are fixed for conferences leaving few elective out of conference games.

As for the Pro arguement, thats why they have a playoff to seriously test the mettle of those teams that did well by having a weak schedule.

Interesting how on the field results are thought to be less importatant than some BS strength of schedule arguement.

GP you can do better than that lame a$$ troll.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, what I'm saying is that, if you insist on having a system where two teams must meet for that national title even if there are no unbeateans, then you need an objective way to choose whichof the once-beatens get to play.

How about a simple rule that you can't finish second in your own conference. How about only letting REAL champions into the big dance. Sounds pretty objective to me... win your conference or stay home.

Again.. you are claiming that a second place team deserved a shot at it. And this from a person who can't even stand wild card teams in other sports play offs

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This thread is deja vu.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sounds pretty objective to me... win your conference or stay home.

It's not fair at all when different conferences have different requirements to be conference champs. Oklahoma went undefeated in the regular season, but had to risk the conference championship in a winner-take-all playoff game. USC, OTOH, didn't go undefeated in the regular season, but didn't have to face a similar postseason game for the Pac 10 title. How exactly is it objective to make a blanket rule like "you must win your conference championship" when the rules for obtaining a conference championship aren't the same?

Come on, you're smarter than this, Ming...

Again.. you are claiming that a second place team deserved a shot at it.

No, I'm claiming that a 12-1 team has just as much of a case as an 11-1 team. I don't really give a damn when they lost, which is how it should be...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How exactly is it objective to make a blanket rule like "you must win your conference championship" when the rules for obtaining a conference championship aren't the same?

Come on, you're smarter than this, Ming...

Sounds objective to me. Win your conference or stay home.
Sure, each conference does it differently... so what.
You play in your conference to win the championship... And Oklahoma couldn't do it. Season over.

Again... you are advocating that second place teams deserve a shot.... come on, you're smarter than that

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, this is going nowhere, so it's off to bed for me. No sense in staying up late to rehash the same old argument.

[Ming]

As long as you continue to advocate that second place teams deserve a shot at the national championship... you are right... this won't go anywhere... Sleep well

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's not fair at all when different conferences have different requirements to be conference champs. Oklahoma went undefeated in the regular season, but had to risk the conference championship in a winner-take-all playoff game. USC, OTOH, didn't go undefeated in the regular season, but didn't have to face a similar postseason game for the Pac 10 title. How exactly is it objective to make a blanket rule like "you must win your conference championship" when the rules for obtaining a conference championship aren't the same?

Boohoo poor Oklahoma. Has to face the risk. Sounds more like excuse making than anything else. If they were championship caliber they'ld be asking for the chance to play rather than wilting in the face of "gulp" a possible loss.

Bunch a posers never should a been there in the first place. Woulda been knocked out in the first round if there was playoff. ('cept if they went up against Nebraska )

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How complex do the BCS rules need to be before people come to the inevitable conclusion that it is completely flawed?

Ohh will just add this little thing this year and this little thing next year etc. etc.

If the goal is to have true champion the message is the same as last year (and the same as next year and the year after that).

Playoff.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why? College football rewards excellence over the course of the entire season, not getting hot at the end. This isn't the NFL, as I've tried to explain to you many times.

As stated by Plato, you don't get it. A team that loses early has probably improved throughout the season, while a team losing late, all other things equal, is playing at that improved state. So we ARE rewarding excellence over the season. The team that lost early played better over the course of the season than the team that lost late.

What if a team loses a star player to injury towards the end of the season, drops a game, but get the player back in time for the bowls? Do you really think that they are less deserving than the other team

Well you sure as **** seem to think so. If there are three teams that are 10-0, and one team loses its star player to injury and loses its last game, you'd say tough luck.

How exactly is it objective to make a blanket rule like "you must win your conference championship" when the rules for obtaining a conference championship aren't the same?

Like Ming said, it doesn't matter that there are seperate rules for winning a conference. Those conferences VOTED for a championship game and ADDED teams to get it! They did it for the money, so they shouldn't whine when it works out against them. The Pac-10 and Big 10 (11) could add more teams, but would rather forgo the money and have the team with the best record be the conference championship. That's their choice to do so.

Win your championship and then go on. Simple.

If the goal is to have true champion the message is the same as last year (and the same as next year and the year after that).

Playoff.

[badams52]

All I came here to say is that what I really learned from all the bowl action is that the Big 12 was highly overrated this year. 2-6 in bowl games including 0-3 from Jan. 1 and on.

The computer polls average had a better idea where the conference belonged than did the humans this year, with the exception of Oklahoma.