College Football -- Better Than Ever

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you saying Miami should have been national champion because the OSU win was a fluke?

Ohio State was the BCS Champion, Miami was the "best" team. One is not necessarily the same as the other.

[MRT144]

Are you saying Miami should have been national champion because the OSU win was a fluke?

Ohio State was the BCS Champion, Miami was the "best" team. One is not necessarily the same as the other.

I see, so really the best team is all determined via a meta-football relative comparison bound by the biases of the observer and anyone can argue that any team is the best using any reasoning. And that's the way it should be right?

Why did the best team lose to the not best team during the one chance to prove they were the best?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why did the best team lose to the not best team during the one chance to prove they were the best?

1. Chance

2. Poor officiating

[MRT144]

Why did the best team lose to the not best team during the one chance to prove they were the best?

1. Chance

2. Poor officiating

Excuses. And poor officiating went both ways especially in depriving Ohio State the win in the 4th Quarter.

When is it not chance BTW? Only when Ohio State loses, not when they win?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only difference in the season is the HTH and the OOC record. LSU is top 10 if not top 5. OSU is top 15. Otherwise their future games are very similar with only home field being the biggest differential factor.

I will throw the OSU National Championship season out as one where they barely beat all of their opponents yet somehow won every single game even when they weren't favored. Are you saying Miami should have been national champion because the OSU win was a fluke?

What Drake said. I also contend that the 2007/08 New England Patriots were the best team that year in the NFL regardless of their one loss in the SuperBowl against the Giants (and I hate the Patriots).

Why did the best team lose to the not best team during the one chance to prove they were the best?

So you don't believe in the concept of "Any Given Saturday/Sunday"? The best team wins every week? If so, what does the "Any Given..." phrase mean to you?

[MRT144]

What Drake said. I also contend that the 2007/08 New England Patriots were the best team that year in the NFL regardless of their one loss in the SuperBowl against the Giants (and I hate the Patriots).



So you don't believe in the concept of "Any Given Saturday/Sunday"? The best team wins every week? If so, what does the "Any Given..." phrase mean to you?

It means that randomness can't be viewed as an excuse because it cuts both ways. How do we know that USC's win over OSU wasn't a random win? You only apply this any given crap when your expectations are let down.

So really OSU is better than USC because it was a fluke loss for them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It means that randomness can't be viewed as an excuse because it cuts both ways. How do we know that USC's win over OSU wasn't a random win? You only apply this any given crap when your expectations are let down.

So do you not believe in "Any Given.."? Even though that's a major selling point for fans of American football (and especially college football, as since it doesn't have a playoff it is more unforgiving)?

One can easily view games within context of the broader season and the relative talent levels of the squads. For example, Sagarin's "Predictor" ranking, which he considers to be far more accurate in determining which team is going to win in the future is based on margin of victory/loss as well as strength of schedule, etc. This sort of analysis that computers do can also be undertaken by individuals in a subjective measure of which team is better (of course, which measures to upgrade or downgrade by computer rankings is also the result of subjective measures).

So really OSU is better than USC because it was a fluke loss for them.

Not necessarily, IMO, but if you noticed, I have Ohio State ranked ahead of Southern Cal in my weekly poll (I think it's on the previous page).

[Guynemer]

They're hopeless, MRT. You're gonna give yourself a stroke if you keep this up.


Though, to further muddy the waters and at the risk of making my BP spike: USC (and their QB in particular) didn't look at that impressive against OSU either. Why assume they'd be that much better against UW if their starting QB had played?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They're hopeless

I believe we can say the same for you two.

[ColdWizard]

I agree with Guy and MRT that Appalachian State should have been ranked top 5 in 2007 after beating Michigan. It's all about head to head.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[rah]

This is why I love that there's no playoffs or anything definitive about the BCS.
No matter what happens there are going to be hundreds of know-it-alls arguing about it.

[rah]

DP

[Guynemer]

I agree with Guy and MRT that Appalachian State should have been ranked top 5 in 2007 after beating Michigan. It's all about head to head.

No, but they absolutely should have been ranked ahead of Michigan, period. Everyone starts the same: 0-0. After one game, yes, the victors should be ahead of the losers.

[MRT144]

I agree with Guy and MRT that Appalachian State should have been ranked top 5 in 2007 after beating Michigan. It's all about head to head.

Like Guy said, they should have been ranked ahead of Michigan until they lost more games or won only games against Div-II teams. They shouldn't have been ranked though.