Congrats are due. The Cowboys had the team this year. Too bad LSU and Alabama won't have the chance to have their teams challenged. Instead we get to see another "boring bowl" featuring two of the most over rated teams in recent history slug it out like Sumo wrestlers on a playground.
BCS sucks.
Don't be so sure yet, A.M. Looking at the strength of schedule, OSU makes a strong argument to get a shot at LSU. We will find out this evening, it looks like. Such a dominating defensive performance on the part of OSU...wow!
Although I love the dramatic buildup to a late season game between OU/OSU, I would really like to see them play early or midseason before injuries, grades and disciplin alter the teams. I do believe it would have been closer had OU not lost some key players. To see how those great OSU pass defenders would have done against Broyles would have been fun.
BCS is influence prone. ESPN leads the charge for the SEC. How they do not see the drama of a powerhouse offensive/defensive team formerly coached by Les Miles facing a thuggish slow moving LSU team and a Big 12/SEC matchup as better than a re-hash of SEC teams is a pretty good example. They are looking for large market teams to play each other.
OSU is west of the Mississippi to ESPN.
Gotta give it up to the Oklahoma State Cowboys, congratulations on your win over my Oklahoma Sooners--game well played!
Quote from: Conan71 on December 04, 2011, 09:13:34 AM
Don't be so sure yet, A.M. Looking at the strength of schedule, OSU makes a strong argument to get a shot at LSU. We will find out this evening, it looks like. Such a dominating defensive performance on the part of OSU...wow!
You really think it would be fun to watch OSU get utterly creamed by LSU? There is no freakin' way you go up against that defense.
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2011, 06:12:49 PM
You really think it would be fun to watch OSU get utterly creamed by LSU? There is no freakin' way you go up against that defense.
Probably won't happen...OSU still trails in the AP and Coach's Poll. They would have to pull ahead of 'Bama in the Harris, and I just don't see that happening. Not that I wouldn't love to see Les Miles face his old team. But I think LSU would crush them.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 04, 2011, 09:13:34 AM
Don't be so sure yet, A.M. Looking at the strength of schedule, OSU makes a strong argument to get a shot at LSU. We will find out this evening, it looks like. Such a dominating defensive performance on the part of OSU...wow!
Except for the fact that OSU lost to a 28 point underdog. And while I understand, I'm not very fond of the excuse I'm hearing (regarding those lost in the plane crash) as the reason they lost the game. They had that game by 10 points at half. Did they suddenly just then realize they had lost those two coaches? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but they should have beat them.
Looks like it's set...
LSU to play Alabama for the BCS Title.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7316817/lsu-tigers-alabama-crimson-tide-rematch-set-bcs-title-game
Let the Poke whining commence....
Quote from: Hoss on December 04, 2011, 07:27:28 PM
Looks like it's set...
LSU to play Alabama for the BCS Title.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7316817/lsu-tigers-alabama-crimson-tide-rematch-set-bcs-title-game
Let the Poke whining commence....
I already have. Aside from their only loss coming at the hands of LSU, they faced a "weaker" schedule than OSU did based on the number of top 25 and top 50 ranked opponents they beat.
Quote from: Hoss on December 04, 2011, 06:20:43 PM
Except for the fact that OSU lost to a 28 point underdog. And while I understand, I'm not very fond of the excuse I'm hearing (regarding those lost in the plane crash) as the reason they lost the game. They had that game by 10 points at half. Did they suddenly just then realize they had lost those two coaches? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but they should have beat them.
Gundy has said all along the defense was worn out at ISU. They've always posed a problem for OSU even in the Pokes best years and ISU's worst. Some of the scarier losses and near losses I've seen OSU take over the years have been by ISU. The only saving grace this year was that OU got beat by Baylor the next night so the bleating didn't last very long.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 04, 2011, 07:32:28 PM
Gundy has said all along the defense was worn out at ISU. They've always posed a problem for OSU even in the Pokes best years and ISU's worst. Some of the scarier losses and near losses I've seen OSU take over the years have been by ISU. The only saving grace this year was that OU got beat by Baylor the next night so the bleating didn't last very long.
But in actuality, Baylor beating OU hurt OSU's SOS.
Quote from: Hoss on December 04, 2011, 07:33:58 PM
But in actuality, Baylor beating OU hurt OSU's SOS.
I doubt it, I've long since suspected the powers that be in BCS and the voting coaches hate the Big 12.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 04, 2011, 07:35:20 PM
I doubt it, I've long since suspected the powers that be in BCS and the voting coaches hate the Big 12.
That's probably the case also, but you can't make the SoS numbers lie. Had OU beat Baylor, it would have given the Pokes a better chance given that they had won over OU by the same margin.
Now Poke fans know what Sooner fans go through during the BCS snub period.
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2011, 06:12:49 PM
You really think it would be fun to watch OSU get utterly creamed by LSU? There is no freakin' way you go up against that defense.
Well, we'll never know now will we?
Instead, after a full year of exciting, up and down movement within the top ten, (and some games that these two teams did not look very good in) the BCS system came up with
two teams from the same conference who have played each other before (in fact every year) and didn't even manage to score a touchdown against each other. We have to endure yet another snoozebowl because the folks east of the Mississippi are so enamored of themselves and their potential markets that they marginalize the rest of the country.
Did you hear one of their announcers in the game against Georgia exclaim that even the GB Packers wouldn't want to play this LSU team?! That's not hubris, that is just plain stupid homerism.
For BCS to be legitimate they ought to factor in the graduation rates. Most of the SEC would be ineligible for bowl games.
Quote from: Hoss on December 04, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
That's probably the case also, but you can't make the SoS numbers lie. Had OU beat Baylor, it would have given the Pokes a better chance given that they had won over OU by the same margin.
Now Poke fans know what Sooner fans go through during the BCS snub period.
Honestly, I never saw OSU coming this far this year and was truly proud of how hard they played last night. They pressured OU to the point Landry came apart.
First conference championship and a BCS berth aren't bad ways to end a season. There's probably 100 other college programs who would have killed for a season like this. It remains to be seen how the Pokes do without Weeden and Blackmon next year.
When you come that close to the brass ring though...
Yaaayyyyyy, team!!!! Conference Champions!!! Yay!!!
Fiesta Bowl!!! Yay!!!
Gotta love it!!
Quote from: AquaMan on December 04, 2011, 08:03:57 PM
Well, we'll never know now will we?
Instead, after a full year of exciting, up and down movement within the top ten, (and some games that these two teams did not look very good in) the BCS system came up with two teams from the same conference who have played each other before (in fact every year) and didn't even manage to score a touchdown against each other. We have to endure yet another snoozebowl because the folks east of the Mississippi are so enamored of themselves and their potential markets that they marginalize the rest of the country.
You talk as if the problem is some sort of favoritism. It's not. Alabama's only loss was a close one against the #1 team in the nation, who has at this point ranked #1 in the AP poll for 10 weeks. OSU is a one loss team who lost to an unranked opponent. The only argument I can see against Alabama is their half-assed performance against Georgia Southern. And I say that as someone who really doesn't like the Tide. I would rather have had OSU go to the championship game for that reason alone, but I can't really complain about Alabama being #2. Had OSU not lost and Alabama still managed to squeak into the NC game I'd be right with there with you, pitchfork in hand.
I will be watching the Fiesta Bowl cheering the Pokes, and for the BCS Championship game, I'll be enroute somewhere between San Francisco and Phoenix on United so it won't be a priority for me. I think the BCS system sucks, but I also think the loss to ISU had a lot to do with it. I just hope that the OSU Stanford game is a good one and OSU has proven that they belong there.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2011, 12:37:46 AM
You talk as if the problem is some sort of favoritism. It's not. Alabama's only loss was a close one against the #1 team in the nation, who has at this point ranked #1 in the AP poll for 10 weeks. OSU is a one loss team who lost to an unranked opponent. The only argument I can see against Alabama is their half-assed performance against Georgia Southern. And I say that as someone who really doesn't like the Tide. I would rather have had OSU go to the championship game for that reason alone, but I can't really complain about Alabama being #2. Had OSU not lost and Alabama still managed to squeak into the NC game I'd be right with there with you, pitchfork in hand.
Your naivete is charming. Had OSU not lost, Alabamy would still be playing the purple passion. Bama didn't drop as far as other teams did when they lost to number one teams. Because the cred given to them overcame the fact that they couldn't even score a td against a team that lesser teams did score against. Go figure. To think huge networks don't influence the rankings is wrong. To think that the SEC isn't helped by a sports network anchored in Atlanta, or that the Pac 12 isn't helped by being in the largest state of the union filled with sports writers isn't real world.
Do you think LSU could keep OSU from scoring the entire game? Did anyone?
Having a team play in the NCG that didn't win their conference, let alone their division makes a mockery of college football, and underscores the need for a playoff system.
OSU was robbed.
It's all about eastern moneyed interests.
Wholly crap ! After Saturday nights game. The World still rotates, I'll be darn.
But really. Congrats to the Orange and Black. It was their year.
Unfortunately it all came down to the loss comparison. I would bet my life that a huge majority of the human voters had no idea that OSU's schedule was so much stronger. Everyone has this perception that the SEC is so strong (Actually it is like 3 good teams and a bunch of Iowa States, course that's giving a little too much credit, they're more like a bunch of Kansas'). Fact is OSU had a far more difficult schedule. Alabama beat only four teams with a winning record (3 if you take out Div II Georgia Southern) whereas OSU beat 7. OSU beat the currently ranked 8, 12, 14& 24th ranked teams (two by 30+ points). Alabama beat the 6, 22 & 25th ranked teams.
Why is the SEC perceived to be so difficult (is it because you have 2 hard games all year and the rest cupcakes)?
The above proves the point that a vast majority of the voters only were looking at the quality of losses. People complain about teams scheduling cupcake non-conference games but as long as they vote as haphazardly as the currently do they have no room to speak.
OSU should schedule some OOC games for once.....
Quote from: AquaMan on December 05, 2011, 09:32:48 AM
Your naivete is charming. Had OSU not lost, Alabamy would still be playing the purple passion.
The .007 difference or whatever squeaker it was is the entire problem for OSU. Maybe you can take issue with the sportswriters and coaches that dropped OSU much farther than the computers did after their loss, but had they not lost, 99% OSU is in the championship game against LSU. And there would be no argument.
azbadpuppy, you think Alabama should be penalized for happening to be in the same conference and division as LSU?
I'm not arguing against an 8 team playoff or something along those lines, mind you. I'd love to see it. What I am arguing against is the idea that it's some kind of travesty that a team that lost to an unranked opponent should rank ahead of a team that didn't. The real travesty would have been Arkansas beating LSU and possibly still not getting a BCS bowl despite a one loss record with the only loss to Alabama, but thankfully that didn't happen. That such a thing is/was a realistic scenario is a much stronger indictment of the BCS system, IMO.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2011, 05:31:09 PM
The .007 difference or whatever squeaker it was is the entire problem for OSU. Maybe you can take issue with the sportswriters and coaches that dropped OSU much farther than the computers did after their loss, but had they not lost, 99% OSU is in the championship game against LSU. And there would be no argument.
azbadpuppy, you think Alabama should be penalized for happening to be in the same conference and division as LSU?
I'm not arguing against an 8 team playoff or something along those lines, mind you. I'd love to see it. What I am arguing against is the idea that it's some kind of travesty that a team that lost to an unranked opponent should rank ahead of a team that didn't. The real travesty would have been Arkansas beating LSU and possibly still not getting a BCS bowl despite a one loss record with the only loss to Alabama, but thankfully that didn't happen. That such a thing is/was a realistic scenario is a much stronger indictment of the BCS system, IMO.
What about the whole metric that OSU beat five top 25-ranked teams and 'Bama only beat two. That really makes me question the weight strength of schedule plays. Now what happens if Alabama beats LSU in a squeaker and OSU kicks the living smile out of Stanford? Should Alabama be crowned National Champion or co-national champion with LSU?
I'm trying not to be so frustrated about missing out on playing in the national title game, but it's hard for those of us who never thought we'd live long enough to see OSU not only be in sole possession of the Big 12 crown but to have a realistic shot at a national title. Hell, I never thought I'd see the day when OSU would literally dominate OU for 60 minutes. I hope it's not the last time but I think many people like me realize Weeden and Blackmon were the kind of dynamic combination that only comes along once every generation or so. As a long-suffering OSU fan, I can only hope the last few seasons have improved our recruiting capabilities and we are building a strong dynasty which can go toe-to-toe with OU and major opponents outside the conference every year now.
Four top 25s (at the time they played), including A&M and Texas, at least one of which I think we can all agree was over-ranked early in the season. Alabama played 5, at least one of which I think we can all agree was over-ranked early in the season. There's a reason why the scores were so close.
Believe me, I don't want to see another snooze-fest, but I quite honestly can't see who else would go. OSU and Alabama had pretty similar schedules as far as opponent rankings go, and Alabama failed to blow one of them. TBH, I was hoping for some serious chaos that somehow got Arkansas and OSU into the NC game. They're both relatively recent BCS contenders, both have explosive offenses and good-but-not-great defenses. Exactly what you need for an exciting game of football.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that LSU and Alabama are almost certainly at least as good as OSU, if not better. The problem is that in both cases their real strength is on defense, not offense. That can make for some seriously boring games.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
Four top 25s (at the time they played), including A&M and Texas, at least one of which I think we can all agree was over-ranked early in the season. Alabama played 5, at least one of which I think we can all agree was over-ranked early in the season. There's a reason why the scores were so close.
Believe me, I don't want to see another snooze-fest, but I quite honestly can't see who else would go. OSU and Alabama had pretty similar schedules as far as opponent rankings go, and Alabama failed to blow one of them. TBH, I was hoping for some serious chaos that somehow got Arkansas and OSU into the NC game. They're both relatively recent BCS contenders, both have explosive offenses and good-but-not-great defenses. Exactly what you need for an exciting game of football.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that LSU and Alabama are almost certainly at least as good as OSU, if not better. The problem is that in both cases their real strength is on defense, not offense. That can make for some seriously boring games.
Sure about your metrics? ABC was claiming the other night that Bama beat two top 25 teams and OSU had beat 5. That's where I got my info anyhow. Seemed odd Alabama would not have played more teams in the top 25. Either I misunderstood or ABC fumbled the stats.
Imagine this, what would be the point in a "national championship" game in the first place:
QuoteBefore we turn our attention to the postseason, a thought on the regular season. Specifically, LSU's regular season.
The Tigers may not be the best team of the BCS era -- that's for another day (if they win one more game). But it's hard to argue that any team has ever put together a better regular season.
That's not only because of their record (14-0) or their ferocious defense or their resourcefulness. It's also because of the teams the Tigers played, and conquered, along the way.
LSU beat the Nos. 2, 5, 6, 16 and 23 teams. Only one of the victories was at home and only one was close (Alabama).
Heck, the Tigers beat three of the other nine teams in the BCS. I'm not sure that's ever happened.
There's a reason they became the first team to finish with a perfect BCS score (1.0000): They're unanimous No. 1 in both human polls and every computer ranking.
I'm sure most, if not all voters will put Alabama on top if the Tide wins the rematch. But you could make the case that as long as it's a close loss, the Tigers should still be No. 1.
They've been that much better than everyone else for three months.
Before we turn our attention to the postseason, a thought on the regular season. Specifically, LSU's regular season.
The Tigers may not be the best team of the BCS era -- that's for another day (if they win one more game). But it's hard to argue that any team has ever put together a better regular season.
That's not only because of their record (14-0) or their ferocious defense or their resourcefulness. It's also because of the teams the Tigers played, and conquered, along the way.
LSU beat the Nos. 2, 5, 6, 16 and 23 teams. Only one of the victories was at home and only one was close (Alabama).
Heck, the Tigers beat three of the other nine teams in the BCS. I'm not sure that's ever happened.
There's a reason they became the first team to finish with a perfect BCS score (1.0000): They're unanimous No. 1 in both human polls and every computer ranking.
I'm sure most, if not all voters will put Alabama on top if the Tide wins the rematch. But you could make the case that as long as it's a close loss, the Tigers should still be No. 1.
They've been that much better than everyone else for three months.
Before we turn our attention to the postseason, a thought on the regular season. Specifically, LSU's regular season.
The Tigers may not be the best team of the BCS era -- that's for another day (if they win one more game). But it's hard to argue that any team has ever put together a better regular season.
That's not only because of their record (14-0) or their ferocious defense or their resourcefulness. It's also because of the teams the Tigers played, and conquered, along the way.
LSU beat the Nos. 2, 5, 6, 16 and 23 teams. Only one of the victories was at home and only one was close (Alabama).
Heck, the Tigers beat three of the other nine teams in the BCS. I'm not sure that's ever happened.
There's a reason they became the first team to finish with a perfect BCS score (1.0000): They're unanimous No. 1 in both human polls and every computer ranking.
I'm sure most, if not all voters will put Alabama on top if the Tide wins the rematch. But you could make the case that as long as it's a close loss, the Tigers should still be No. 1.
They've been that much better than everyone else for three months.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19475423
Quote from: Conan71 on December 05, 2011, 07:05:09 PM
Sure about your metrics? ABC was claiming the other night that Bama beat two top 25 teams and OSU had beat 5. That's where I got my info anyhow. Seemed odd Alabama would not have played more teams in the top 25. Either I misunderstood or ABC fumbled the stats.
Yeah, I'm sure. ESPN's team schedules show the opponent's rank at the time of the game. If you count in a different way, Alabama has won two and OSU has won three against
current top 25 teams, if I'm counting correctly anyway. There's a reason it was so close.
Funny that ABC would use Alabama's "now" count and OSU's at-the-time count. Not really surprising, though. Makes for a bigger controversy (and therefore better ratings) when you present it that way.
By the way, LSU played six presently in the top 25, or
eight ranked opponents at the time of the game. That's a schedule right there.
Bottom line:
This will be a lucrative game for the network that carries it because each school has such a fanatical following and that's what they always shoot for.
It will engender more spin that football is really only football in the SEC.
If Bama wins it won't mean anything. Each team will have beaten each other once.
One or the other will still end up winning the mythical national championship.
I watched a pretty talented OU team get pounded at most every position. I saw receivers making outrageously athletic plays when they were well covered. I watched both LSU and Alabamy play this year and frankly was underwhelmed. They have good defenses and in LSU's case, a bat crazy gambler for a coach, but not much offense. Most of their scoring seemed to be second half when they adjusted and the other team didn't. Good coaching for sure. But, they are thugs in pads. I watched Bama defenders kick receivers on the ground after they had made catches in front of them and had to suffer the sycophantic announcers comment that "..them boys is physical." I'm sick of watching SEC refs who can't seem to see LSU players blocking in the back and hitting quarterbacks well after the ball has been thrown. If that is the nature of national champions then I won't be tuning in.
Oh, yeah. I'm an OU grad and fan. OSU got hosed.
When LSU plays Alabama, the money will flow into the coffers.
If LSU played us, it woud be "OS-who?"
It's all about the cash flow.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 06, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
When LSU plays Alabama, the money will flow into the coffers.
If LSU played us, it woud be "OS-who?"
They would probably guess Ohio State or Oregon State. >:(
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 12:47:58 PM
They would probably guess Ohio State or Oregon State. >:(
Nobody would think OSU means Ohio State. They're "true" OSU, or tOSU for short. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2011, 04:38:31 PM
Nobody would think OSU means Ohio State. They're "true" OSU, or tOSU for short. ;)
If you insist. I don't really keep track of that anyway. I didn't go to any school starting with the letter "O".
Speaking of colleges with an "O" in their name, you will get a laugh out of this.....
QuoteEUGENE, Ore. — When University of Oregon football fans cheer their team, they often hold out their hands in the shape of the letter "O," for Oregon. If this makes some Ducks players blush, it is because many of them chose sign language to fulfill their foreign language requirement, and in sign language, the fans are saying — screaming, really — the word vagina. Twenty-nine players on the team are enrolled in the university's American Sign Language program. Their teacher delights in telling them the true meaning of the sign when they form a spade-shaped "O" with their hands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/sports/ncaafootball/american-sign-language-program-attracts-oregon-football-players.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/sports/ncaafootball/american-sign-language-program-attracts-oregon-football-players.html?_r=1)
From the university that gave us Animal House by the way.
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 06, 2011, 07:16:46 PM
Speaking of colleges with an "O" in their name, you will get a laugh out of this.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/sports/ncaafootball/american-sign-language-program-attracts-oregon-football-players.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/sports/ncaafootball/american-sign-language-program-attracts-oregon-football-players.html?_r=1)
From the university that gave us Animal House by the way.
I thought it was Faber ;)
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2011, 05:31:09 PM
azbadpuppy, you think Alabama should be penalized for happening to be in the same conference and division as LSU?
No, I think they should be penalized for alreading
losing to LSU, thus losing their division, and conference.
Well that, and....
SOS rankings:
OSU - 9
Bama - 42
Wins over teams appearing in this week's BCS top 25:
OSU - 5
Bama - 2
Wins over bowl-bound teams with winning records:
OSU - 7
Bama - 3
Alabama is going to the NCG simply because they are Alabama.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 06, 2011, 09:55:58 PM
Alabama is going to the NCG simply because they are Alabama.
Does that make them the 1%ers of college football?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 06, 2011, 09:55:58 PM
Alabama is going to the NCG simply because they are Alabama.
a) your stats are BS, as already covered (moreover, using end of year rankings is just silly, teams get better and worse as the season progresses)
b) if your theory was true, Alabama would be way behind in the computer polls. They're not.
Also, I think OSU should be penalized for losing to
Iowa State. Conferences and divisions are arbitrary. Most years since Arkansas joined the SEC, they would have won the SEC West, if not the championship, with a team like they had this year. Turns out, LSU and Alabama happen to both be freak-of-nature great this year. It happens. Get over it.
You seriously think it's simply not possible for the two best teams in college football to happen to be in the same division of the same conference?
Pro tip: You want to play in the NC game, go out and win the games you're supposed to win. If you can't do that, no NC game for you.
And just for kicks, a different strength of schedule ranking:
1: LSU
2: Alabama
3: Arkansas
4: Oklahoma
5: Iowa State
...
9: Oklahoma State
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 10:02:28 PM
Does that make them the 1%ers of college football?
Actually, I think it makes the BCS the 1% ;)
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2011, 10:55:23 PM
a) your stats are BS, as already covered (moreover, using end of year rankings is just silly, teams get better and worse as the season progresses)
b) if your theory was true, Alabama would be way behind in the computer polls. They're not.
Also, I think OSU should be penalized for losing to Iowa State. Conferences and divisions are arbitrary. Most years since Arkansas joined the SEC, they would have won the SEC West, if not the championship, with a team like they had this year. Turns out, LSU and Alabama happen to both be freak-of-nature great this year. It happens. Get over it.
You seriously think it's simply not possible for the two best teams in college football to happen to be in the same division of the same conference?
Pro tip: You want to play in the NC game, go out and win the games you're supposed to win. If you can't do that, no NC game for you.
And just for kicks, a different strength of schedule ranking:
1: LSU
2: Alabama
3: Arkansas
4: Oklahoma
5: Iowa State
...
9: Oklahoma State
Wouldn't end of year rankings be more significant, as they show how good teams actually turned out to be? Seems fairly obvious...and forget computer polls- 2/3 of the BCS rankings are based on humans.
And OSU was penalized, obviously very severely, by losing to Iowa State. Hence the only reason we are having this conversation.
Playing an SEC sequel for the NCG is not only snoozeville, but it further exposes the SEC bias, and it's completely insulting to teams who did win their conference and haven't already blown their chance to prove they could beat the only undefeated team out there.
Seriously, the case made for Alabama to be the #2 team is really not that impressive, except of course that they are Alabama.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 07, 2011, 12:18:03 AM
Wouldn't end of year rankings be more significant, as they show how good teams actually turned out to be? Seems fairly obvious...and forget computer polls- 2/3 of the BCS rankings are based on humans.
And OSU was penalized, obviously very severely, by losing to Iowa State. Hence the only reason we are having this conversation.
Playing an SEC sequel for the NCG is not only snoozeville, but it further exposes the SEC bias, and it's completely insulting to teams who did win their conference and haven't already blown their chance to prove they could beat the only undefeated team out there.
Seriously, the case made for Alabama to be the #2 team is really not that impressive, except of course that they are Alabama.
But, conversely, the case made that OSU should be #2 is about the same level of 'weak'. AS you said earlier, if they had beaten ISU, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Beat the teams you're supposed to beat. The polls don't care what happened to you that week. If that were the case, OU would be in the top 5 simply by virtue of their being decimated by injury in the last half of the season.
Quote from: Hoss on December 07, 2011, 12:23:25 AM
But, conversely, the case made that OSU should be #2 is about the same level of 'weak'. AS you said earlier, if they had beaten ISU, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Beat the teams you're supposed to beat. The polls don't care what happened to you that week. If that were the case, OU would be in the top 5 simply by virtue of their being decimated by injury in the last half of the season.
Yeah I agree the ISU loss is pretty weak, but other factors aren't so weak when you start to look at comparisons.
I also agree that there are no excuses for teams poor performances, and in the end nobody cares. But, it does seem like a truly great team should be able to overcome injuries with adjustments and good coaching and not let it ruin the entire season (and I am a big OU fan btw). Honestly though, OU has more issues than just injuries right now.
I think it just boiled down to the fact that Alabama is a Marquee team, and OSU is not. Plain and simple.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 07, 2011, 12:18:03 AM
Wouldn't end of year rankings be more significant, as they show how good teams actually turned out to be?
No. As I said, teams change throughout the year. Injuries, suspensions, and whatever else can wreak havoc. Other than the first week or two of the season, the as-played ranking is a more useful gauge, IMO.
You can claim bias all you want, but this isn't a great place to do it. It's simply not clear-cut enough. I understand the argument for OSU, and it's pretty compelling. But their loss is also compelling. Had it been to a top 10 or even top 25, you may not have gotten the same result. It was close. I see both sides very easily. The rematch argument is also a good one, but has love all to do with the rules governing the BCS system.
Reports are that the Bamy coach voted OSU 9th in his voting for the rankings. There's your human factor that takes up about 2/3 of the vote.
I've asked before, and no one knows of course, but think about it...Is there anyone who seriously thinks OSU would not score a single touchdown against LSU? Bamy didn't....couldn't.
Is there anyone who seriously believes that the SEC isn't the recipient of a huge public relations benefit from ESPN and that it doesn't corrupt the process?
Ever heard the phrase, "On any given day?" The Giants dang near beat the best Packer team I've ever seen. Sometimes OSU has played the role of giant killer too.
Finally, and most importantly to me, if the rankings are BS during the year, and they are, why would rankings at the end of the year be any more credible?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 07, 2011, 10:38:38 AM
Reports are that the Bamy coach voted OSU 9th in his voting for the rankings. There's your human factor that takes up about 2/3 of the vote.
When the human polls counted for less, people complained. Now that they count more, people complain. No matter what, people aren't going to be happy. (except maybe with a playoff, but probably not even then)
And no, reports are wrong. Saban put OSU at 4th, behind Stanford. Not some indefensibly stupid vote like OSU for 9th. If it makes you feel any better, Stoops put OSU at #2. A lot of people did. That's why it was close.
Someone may have to refresh my memory cause I can't recall the entire BCS history. I vaguely recall people moaning and groaning about all the computers screwing up the BCS back in the day. Did they represent more than 1/3 or the BCS at any point?
Regarding the computer polls: the thing with them is they do exactly what they are told. They don't have tendencies to vote one conference higher over another (unless programmed). It seems to me that it would be more "fair" to have the powers that be come to an agreement on what attributes are most important in deserving to play in the national title game and let multiple computers (like we have now) come to that conclusion for us, without looney coaches voting OSU 7th (this is crazy no matter how you slice it, 4th I can). Humans are imperfect and will vote the way they do for a myriad of reasons. ESPECIALLY coaches for goodness sake who literally have skin in the game. On that note, if you are going to have a coaches poll than all coaches should be allowed to vote, not just those selected. Say all active D1 coaches, that would be interesting.
The reason I like the computers is, because the rules are set up at the beginning, not the end. If you don't like the result, change the rules next year, but not in the middle of the season. With humans, the rules are ALWAYS changing.
Quote from: erfalf on December 07, 2011, 11:31:13 AM
Regarding the computer polls:
GIGO. Change the programming.
Without reading this whole thread....
OSU should have beaten Iowa State (Holder should get kicked in the nads for scheduling that Friday night game - it also should have been cancelled after the plane crash), OSU still got hosed (not the first), the BCS is a joke...Bowl games don't really mean anything anymore. At least a 4 team playoff is probably necessary. There are too many conflicting interests represented in the polling systems and it has an arbitrary 2 to 1 ruling over objective measures. If human polls were any contribution, they would have given us the game we all want to see....
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/harris-voter-i-think-bcs-just-mess
The human factor is unavoidable, whether its voting or programming or setting criteria. I do feel better that Stoops voted OSU 2nd. He was right. I predicted early in the season that OU would be an 8-3 team and that OSU may end up winning the conference.
I am soundly against a playoff system though. Go back way before BCS. When it was bowl dominated and there were only two ratings that were important. One was the sportswriters of the UPI who followed the teams closely, wrote about them and whose biases were pretty well offset by regional location. The other was the AP Coaches poll which factored in the opinions of coaches who had actually played against each other. The AP had its own biases by conference but they were pretty accurate. For instance in the game of the century, (the last century) each of the coaches who had played both Nebraska and OU were polled. They most all agreed that it would be close but Nebraska had the edge with Johnny Rodgers. Nebraska eaked it out with a kickoff return by Rogers to win 31-29 iirc.
The counterbalance was the bowl game system. Since they were conference oriented (Rosebowl always pitted the Big Ten winner against the PAC 10 winner) it didn't matter to those conferences who the other two thought were the best, they were fighting to win the Rosebowl. Same went for the other bowls. The Cotton was important to the Big 8, The Orange Bowl was the East coast bowl etc. There were polls during the season and post season AP and UPI polls and post bowl game polls.
The nice thing was, there was opportunity for every conference, every team and every fan to claim something. It was not a professional league, it was college student athletes. Occassionally there would be a consensus poll winner but not very often. Now with the BCS and the increasing pressure to make as much money as possible there is pressure to influence the polls all season long in order to claim a "winner take all" national championship system, when in fact its just a scramble for a pot full of money.
It worked pretty well. Ironically, we hated it at the time. We never got to play USC or UCLA unless a quirk of scheduling to prove we were at the same level. Still, it worked.
Quote from: nathanm on December 07, 2011, 02:05:26 AM
No. As I said, teams change throughout the year. Injuries, suspensions, and whatever else can wreak havoc. Other than the first week or two of the season, the as-played ranking is a more useful gauge, IMO.
You can claim bias all you want, but this isn't a great place to do it. It's simply not clear-cut enough. I understand the argument for OSU, and it's pretty compelling. But their loss is also compelling. Had it been to a top 10 or even top 25, you may not have gotten the same result. It was close. I see both sides very easily. The rematch argument is also a good one, but has love all to do with the rules governing the BCS system.
As long as the voting/polling is set up the way it is in the BCS, there will be bias. This is but one example of it. One only has to also look at Michigan getting chosen for a BCS game over Michigan State, and about a half dozen more deserving teams. Why? Because they are, well, Michigan.
Yes, the at large picks are as subject to whim as the non-BCS bowls where tie-ins don't force a particular choice. That has zero bearing whatsoever on whether OSU should be ranked #2 or #3.
You know, there was a time when people were just happy to have a clearly deserving top 5 or top 10 team. Now whiners gotta whine about everything. That's probably the worst part of the BCS system.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 07, 2011, 10:38:38 AM
Is there anyone who seriously believes that the SEC isn't the recipient of a huge public relations benefit from ESPN and that it doesn't corrupt the process?
John Holcomb pointed out ESPN, his former employer, "...pays the SEC 'truckloads' of cash for the right to broadcast their games" essentially saying the PR fix for the SEC was in for weeks prior to last weekend.
I agree with azbad, I believe the final top 25 is the most relevant way to analyze the SOS issue. Properly-staffed and coached teams have the depth to overcome injuries.
I really do find it ridiculous that two teams from the same conference and division can play for the national championship.
That's all I'm going to say about it until after the Fiesta Bowl. If OSU completely decimates Stanford and there's another yawner between Bama and LSU, with Alabama winning by a narrow margin, I think most NCAAF followers will know in their own minds who should be wearing the #1 crown.
Oh, one more observation: it's been impressive to see the volume of people I know to be OU fans speaking up on behalf of the Pokes.
Meh...college fottball sux, thanks to money/TV....and college bball is in preseason all the way into April.
The world of sport has changed for the worse and it's not due to technology. It's due to bad behavior and bad ideas based on making more money.
Too bad, Aggies. :'(
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 07, 2011, 03:37:00 PM
Meh...college fottball sux, thanks to money/TV....and college bball is in preseason all the way into April.
The world of sport has changed for the worse and it's not due to technology. It's due to bad behavior and bad ideas based on making more money.
Too bad, Aggies. :'(
Sports would be great if it weren't for all the money in and around it.
Quote from: nathanm on December 07, 2011, 12:47:44 PM
Yes, the at large picks are as subject to whim as the non-BCS bowls where tie-ins don't force a particular choice. That has zero bearing whatsoever on whether OSU should be ranked #2 or #3.
You know, there was a time when people were just happy to have a clearly deserving top 5 or top 10 team. Now whiners gotta whine about everything. That's probably the worst part of the BCS system.
Wow, you must be from SEC country ;)
I never said the two were related. I'm pointing out the myriad of bias within the current system.
I think the OSU folks have a lot to gripe about, and aside from the OSU haters and the SEC blowhards, I'm hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees. Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth from the SEC crowd if a one loss team from another conference, who did not win their conference, was playing in the NCG? It would be epic.
Basically Alabama blew their chance, and now they are getting a redo. Good for them. Fair? I don't think so.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 07, 2011, 04:14:25 PM
Sports would be great if it weren't for all the money in and around it.
Ain't that the truth!
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 07, 2011, 08:05:59 PM
Basically Alabama blew their chance, and now they are getting a redo. Good for them. Fair? I don't think so.
As did OSU. To a worse team. That's the entire problem.
Quote from: nathanm on December 07, 2011, 08:25:56 PM
As did OSU. To a worse team. That's the entire problem.
The BIG difference is that OSU didn't already blow it with LSU....there's no mulligan given to OSU. Alabama has already shown they can't beat LSU, and can't win their conference. Big difference.
The BCS slogan: Every Game Matters! Really? Apparently not if you're in the SEC....
Sooooo, what do you think happens if OSU blows away Stanford? Alabama squeaks by LSU 3-0? Still think the right team will be crowned champion? I know this whole thing is a lot of ifs and buts, but frankly, as a big college football fan I find the whole BCS system really frustrating.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 07, 2011, 08:46:29 PM
The BIG difference is that OSU didn't already blow it with LSU....there's no mulligan given to OSU. Alabama has already shown they can't beat LSU, and can't win their conference. Big difference.
The BCS slogan: Every Game Matters! Really? Apparently not if you're in the SEC....
Sooooo, what do you think happens if OSU blows away Stanford? Alabama squeaks by LSU 3-0? Still think the right team will be crowned champion? I know this whole thing is a lot of ifs and buts, but frankly, as a big college football fan I find the whole BCS system really frustrating.
I don't think I've ever said I'm terribly happy with the BCS as it is. All I'm saying is that the point of the BCS is to put the #1 and #2 teams in a game together, and sometimes it's a close call that really could go either way. I just don't see it as the scathing indictment that you do. As I said before, I'd rather OSU have gone. I think it would have been a more interesting game. They failed to hack it. I can't see any justification for penalizing a team that lost to a top ranked opponent more than a team that loses to an unranked opponent, no matter who it is.
By all means, let's have a playoff. But not because of this, because it would just be better.
And in your scenario, I'd say the team that beats LSU should take home the title. Football is often about coming back from a defeat. I just hope there's more action this time around. And a playoff.
OK, here is my new BCS proposal. I feel this is the most fair especially for those "the whole season is a playoff" people.
An eight team playoff. The eight teams will consist of the following:
* Conference champions (must play a championship game) from the following six conferences: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac 12 & the SEC.
* There are (currently) five other FBS conferences, so we will take the two highest ranked teams that won one of those conferences, for instance this season it would have been TCU from the Mountain West and Southern Miss from Conference USA.
So then you would have the following games per se:
LSU vs West Virginia (Sugar Bowl)
OSU vs Southern Miss (Fiesta Bowl)
Oregon vs TCU (Rose Bowl)
Wisconsin vs Clemson (Orange Bowl)
If higher ranked team prevail then you would have some fun ones:
LSU vs Wisconsin
OSU vs Oregon
The championship and semi-finals would be in a traveling location like the super bowl (ya know, "spread the wealth"). There are plenty of domed stadiums (Dallas/Houston/Indy/Detroit/St. Louis/Atlanta/Minneapolis) that aren't the Super Dome in New Orleans.
My whole thing with a four game playoff is someone is still going to get shafted. You should have to win your conference, it really is like a playoff because you actually play most of the teams. In my proposal a few teams will still feel like they got shafted (Sun Belt/WAC/Mid American winners) but not as many people will care.
Will these athletes ever have time for class? Seriously, you would be looking at a mid to late January playoff. Close to the superbowl and having to share advertising sources.
There is no real national champion in college football any more than there is a national champion high school football team. Even the press calls it a "mythical" national champion. You know why?
Because neither collegiate nor prep are in a professional league and should never be treated that way. Collegiate football is being exploited and shortly afterward so will high school ball. Best time to stop it is now. Either professionalize the teams and promote leagues or spin them off from the Universities much like fraternities. Or go back to some sanity and just use multiple ratings systems and let the fans argue ad infinitum.
The idea that colleges are perpetuating this fiasco in the name of money is pretty depressing.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 08, 2011, 10:55:51 AM
Will these athletes ever have time for class? Seriously, you would be looking at a mid to late January playoff. Close to the superbowl and having to share advertising sources.
Sure they will, start the games now (after finals) instead of taking a month long vacation. Consider also that only four teams will be playing any extra games, and they should be over Christmas break. And the Super Bowl is in February. This wouldn't even coincide with the NFL playoffs. Nothing is happening during this 3 or 4 week span anyways.
And yes there will be money involved, but why not just split it evenly between all participating conferences. It will be like Major League Baseball. Each team/league will be a franchise and we will have a luxury tax. The luxury being you rock at football and make tons of money. While being good will provide an economic benefit, it will put a bit of a cap on those four teams that play extra games (the 1% ;) )
Liberals should be loving this idea for goodness sake.
Or better yet, just do away with professional football in universities completely. It is an institution of higher learning - allegedly.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 12:18:56 PM
Or better yet, just do away with professional football in universities completely. It is an institution of higher learning - allegedly.
I believe at many universities that the football program helps finance some of the less popular athletic programs.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 12:31:10 PM
I believe at many universities that the football program helps finance some of the less popular athletic programs.
Yeah, right...construction technology for bigger domes maybe.
Or getting a sugar daddy like Boone Pickens to donate. What was it? $265 million to football and 47 cents to academics?
But it's good to know that he got something out of it, too! Win, win??
On July 28, 2007 the Board of Regents of Oklahoma State University approved a resolution to move $28 million from the OSU Foundation into Pickens' BP Capital Management company in Dallas. Oklahoma State has previously invested $277 million in the fund. Pickens has been waiving fees for the university's investments with his fund.
And while he was at it, he led the charge on the lies spewed by the Swift Boaters. People who had absolutely no personal information concerning the service record of Kerry. Versus what was said by everyone (except 1) who actually served with him. But hey, truth doesn't really count in this day and age, does it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 12:55:22 PM
Or getting a sugar daddy like Boone Pickens to donate. What was it? $265 million to football and 47 cents to academics?
He has given over $400 million to the university with $265 going toward athletics. That means he has given $135 to the actual university. Not exactly chump change. He only made the largest single donation to a university in this state. What more do you want. Plus he has donated at least another $300 mil to other entities including a $100M endowment to two U of Texas hospitals
Back up from the ledge here. Mr Pickens can do what he wishes with all his money. He has vowed to donate half of his wealth (which I believe he has already accomplished and is adding to) If the strings attached are that the university has to reinvest in his fund and you don't like it, then blame the University. There were after all two willing participants in the transaction.
Quote from: erfalf on December 08, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
He has given over $400 million to the university with $265 going toward athletics. That means he has given $135 to the actual university. Not exactly chump change. He only made the largest single donation to a university in this state. What more do you want. Plus he has donated at least another $300 mil to other entities including a $100M endowment to two U of Texas hospitals
Back up from the ledge here. Mr Pickens can do what he wishes with all his money. He has vowed to donate half of his wealth (which I believe he has already accomplished and is adding to) If the strings attached are that the university has to reinvest in his fund and you don't like it, then blame the University. There were after all two willing participants in the transaction.
Actually, I am a big fan of OSU (even their football!) and am thrilled to death at what he has done for the school! Just a little devil's advocacy here for a bit...
My only real gripe with him is the Swift Boat lies. And I can forgive that for what he has done for OSU.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 12:55:22 PM
Yeah, right...construction technology for bigger domes maybe.
I know at Arkansas, donations earmarked to the sports projects have paid for the football stadium, the indoor football practice building, the basketball arena, the new track venue, and the baseball stadium, and all the other nice sports-related stuff they have there. Football revenue pays for maintaining all that and the operations of the rest of the teams. It helps that the Razorback Foundation pays the bigger part of the coaches' salary in basketball and football.
Football is a revenue center, not a cost center, at least if you're in the SEC. ;)
Edited to add: And a little hypothetical about how the picks for an 8 team playoff would not necessarily be much better than what we have now: Not long ago, Alabama and Arkansas were both 9-1, with Arkansas yet to play LSU. Had Arkansas beaten LSU (which isn't entirely outlandish if you've followed the series), Alabama would have probably gone to the SEC championship game and Arkansas would have been left out. Should Alabama really be the one to go to the playoffs in that scenario, despite losing to LSU in the regular season? Which one of them should be left out in favor of Clemson who would fold like a dollar bill when facing any of the three?
Why should the conference you're in matter so much when it's the SEC, but not when it's C-USA?
Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 02:25:13 PM
I know at Arkansas, donations earmarked to the sports projects have paid for the football stadium, the indoor football practice building, the basketball arena, the new track venue, and the baseball stadium, and all the other nice sports-related stuff they have there. Football revenue pays for maintaining all that and the operations of the rest of the teams. It helps that the Razorback Foundation pays the bigger part of the coaches' salary in basketball and football.
Football is a revenue center, not a cost center, at least if you're in the
That is a well worn spin by administrators of universities that they borrowed from the state legislatures. When the state started getting more money from casino gambling earmarked for "Education" they promptly cut their regular funding of education till it resembled the original budget. That way all parties involved get to say, "See, we support education, we even raised the funding" (just before we cut the funding).
Same thing in college athletics. Since that ruse has been so successful it has become accepted truth. Football has been promoted more, depended upon more and academia just can't say no to more football funding because it pays off. The other sports meanwhile are considered weak sisters. Yet, somehow those institutions that don't rely on football...still fund womens volleyball, hockey, swim, track, rowing etc. and they do well academically and in niche sports. Maybe because without football they can focus on those pursuits and find angels like Pickens.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't run a university without football. The point is that the football team costs less than nothing to the university because they don't spend $48.5 million dollars a year on it, and that's what it brings in. That's completely unrelated to state funding or lack thereof. FWIW, UA got $186 million from the state last fiscal year, up from $184 million in 2008 and $143 million in 2002. Clearly, that number should be higher, but it hasn't been declining even as football revenue has skyrocketed.
Maybe it's different in Oklahoma, I haven't really investigated higher education funding here.
Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 07:24:23 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't run a university without football. The point is that the football team costs less than nothing to the university because they don't spend $48.5 million dollars a year on it, and that's what it brings in. That's completely unrelated to state funding or lack thereof. FWIW, UA got $186 million from the state last fiscal year, up from $184 million in 2008 and $143 million in 2002. Clearly, that number should be higher, but it hasn't been declining even as football revenue has skyrocketed.
Maybe it's different in Oklahoma, I haven't really investigated higher education funding here.
Yeah, its different here.
I am more than a little surprised that you can't understand what I'm saying. Doesn't matter really. Football rules.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 08, 2011, 07:34:13 PM
Yeah, its different here.
I am more than a little surprised that you can't understand what I'm saying. Doesn't matter really. Football rules.
No, I understand the concept perfectly well. The idea is that universities with profitable football programs see their state appropriations replaced by football money. (Or that appropriations get replaced by lottery money here in Oklahoma) I merely pointed out that at the one football school I'm familiar enough with to know approximate numbers and find exact numbers, that didn't actually happen.
In OK they play the budget slight of hand.
The way I see the academic world now, as a father who has put one through and has another one to go shortly, is different than the way I saw them when I was a young man. Its a matter of balance to me now. Had Arkansas not built up a huge and successful football program that seems to have paid for itself, they could have spent the money in other places to make them a more attractive school in lots of areas. College has become an extension of high school dominated by fraternities that teach you to drink, and a semi-pro football organization that serves as a profit center while it entertains its region and alums. Academics seem to be a by-product. In the bigger picture we need fewer successful football programs and more successful academic programs to compete with the rest of the world.
Good examples of well balanced colleges might be TU and Stanford. They register occasional, notable successes in sports, but offer high graduation rates, well respected programs and motivated students. You ever see TU try to boost their football program again its a bad sign for them.
So where's my kid want to go? OU of course.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 09, 2011, 09:56:16 AM
So where's my kid want to go? OU of course.
It's possible to get a good education at OU. I know a few grads from there, my sister included. It will be easier on your wallet than many other choices.
If I were to make up a fake resume. It most certainly would have T.U. as my graduate college. The business World knows what they produce over there off 11th st.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 09, 2011, 09:56:16 AM
The way I see the academic world now, as a father who has put one through and has another one to go shortly, is different than the way I saw them when I was a young man. Its a matter of balance to me now. Had Arkansas not built up a huge and successful football program that seems to have paid for itself, they could have spent the money in other places to make them a more attractive school in lots of areas.
The university didn't pay for most of it themselves. Donors did. Donors who like sports. Donors also paid for a really nice B-school, the renovation of Old Main, the renovation of Carnall Hall, and more.