Crappy BCS analysis / prediction thread

[Gary Gorski]

Frankly I'm hoping for one of two scenarios. Either 1) Florida gets waxed in the NC game proving that they didn't belong there over Michigan in the first place or 2) Florida and UM win and end up splitting the title. Either way its another blow against the BcS. I think 1 has a far greater chance of happening than 2.

Politics are deciding who gets to play for the championship and that's wrong. It should be the two best teams who play for it. There's a month before the championship game - I would love to see this settled on the field rather than by politics but obviously that won't happen. You know the system is wrong when the team that loses the championship doesn't finish #2 in the polls.

Here's what I don't get - if USC would have beaten a mediocre team then Florida's win over Arkansas wouldn't have jumped them ahead of USC so should teams in the Big Ten just schedule a game for championship week against some mediocre team. The argument is Michigan played nobody this week so they couldn't lose. Well what if they played some 6-5 school this week like USC was doing? Would Florida beating Arkansas jump them over UM but not USC? If that is the case then shouldn't Florida have been ahead of UM to start with? The one opponent UM and Florida shared (Vandy) UM beat by 20 and Florida beat by 6.

UM is #3 because the voters did not want a rematch. UM is the better team and was ranked as such for two weeks after their loss to the #1 team - This will be the only time in my life I root for OSU but I hope they demolish Florida, which I think they have a good chance of doing, and prove yet again what a joke this format is.

[Blade6119]

Frankly I'm hoping for one of two scenarios. Either 1) Florida gets waxed in the NC game proving that they didn't belong there over Michigan in the first place or 2) Florida and UM win and end up splitting the title. Either way its another blow against the BcS. I think 1 has a far greater chance of happening than 2.

Politics are deciding who gets to play for the championship and that's wrong. It should be the two best teams who play for it. There's a month before the championship game - I would love to see this settled on the field rather than by politics but obviously that won't happen. You know the system is wrong when the team that loses the championship doesn't finish #2 in the polls.

Here's what I don't get - if USC would have beaten a mediocre team then Florida's win over Arkansas wouldn't have jumped them ahead of USC so should teams in the Big Ten just schedule a game for championship week against some mediocre team. The argument is Michigan played nobody this week so they couldn't lose. Well what if they played some 6-5 school this week like USC was doing? Would Florida beating Arkansas jump them over UM but not USC? If that is the case then shouldn't Florida have been ahead of UM to start with? The one opponent UM and Florida shared (Vandy) UM beat by 20 and Florida beat by 6.

UM is #3 because the voters did not want a rematch. UM is the better team and was ranked as such for two weeks after their loss to the #1 team - This will be the only time in my life I root for OSU but I hope they demolish Florida, which I think they have a good chance of doing, and prove yet again what a joke this format is.
Michigan was only ahead of both teams because they played their games sooner then Florida and USC. As well, their big loss didnt come until their final game. Read this post, it makes sense:This is the argument I'm sick of. How does this make any sense? Seriously? UF had an off week on 10/21 while Michigan played and beat (now-unranked) Iowa. Here, let's move that game to this week. Know what? Same records. Want a better team? Okay, move the Notre Dame win to this week, that does look impressive. But, oh, wait, Michigan jumped from #11/#13 to #6/#6 with that win. Maybe they wouldn't BE in front of Florida if they hadn't already played their games.

Even better. Directional North and South are both ranked #4 (tie). Directional North plays and beats #20, #21 and #22 while Directional South is idle. Directional North is now ranked #4, Directional South #5. Meanwhile, DN now takes three weeks off and Directional South beats #1, #2, and #3. Ooooops, can't drop North while they don't play. Now North is #1 and South is #2. That makes a ton of sense.

[Ragone]

So would most, but we all know that won't happen for a long while (until the "Notre Dame mystique" wears off a bit more).

scrapping the "rule" Would go a long way to pushing them into a conference

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Frankly I'm hoping for one of two scenarios. Either 1) Florida gets waxed in the NC game proving that they didn't belong there over Michigan in the first place

I'm actually hoping Michigan gets waxed in the Rose Bowl so we all know they shouldn't have gotten the nod for the national championship game ahead of USC (had they beat UCLA) or Florida.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Michigan was only ahead of both teams because they played their games sooner then Florida and USC. As well, their big loss didnt come until their final game. Read this post, it makes sense:

Yep.

[JHandley]

Here's what I don't get - if USC would have beaten a mediocre team then Florida's win over Arkansas wouldn't have jumped them ahead of USC so should teams in the Big Ten just schedule a game for championship week against some mediocre team. The argument is Michigan played nobody this week so they couldn't lose. Well what if they played some 6-5 school this week like USC was doing? Would Florida beating Arkansas jump them over UM but not USC? If that is the case then shouldn't Florida have been ahead of UM to start with? The one opponent UM and Florida shared (Vandy) UM beat by 20 and Florida beat by 6.



This is what I can't get my head around either. Does anyone think that had USC beaten UCLA, that the polls would have had 1. OSU 2. USC 3. Florida 4. Michigan? USC's loss to Oregon State was worse than Florida's to Auburn, yet USC was a shoo-in if they beat UCLA.

Frankly, there are many legitimate arguements to put Florida in the National Championship game. They won their conference, they played a tough schedule, they are a very good team. If I were a Florida fan, I'd be insulted with the "No rematch" angle. Either they played their way in or they didn't.

As a Michigan fan, I'm really not that upset. I was in favor of any scenerio that didn't put Michigan against Notre Dame again. I think the Michigan/USC game is going to be a great Rose Bowl. I just can't figure out how USC losing makes Florida more deserving than Michigan. That's really what the "No rematch" arguement boils down to.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Honestly, i'd like to see the notre dame rule for the bcs be scrapped.. force them to go to a conference or be treated like a mid-major

No, you wouldn't. Mid-majors actually have a more generous qualification deal than ND; Boise State would not be automatically qualified under the ND rules.

Edit: Er, that's not right, Boise State would be qualified under the ND rules because they finished up 8th, but if they'd finished up 9th, they would have autoqualified under the mid-major rules but not under the ND rules.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Here's the gory details: Boise State could have automatically qualified this season by finishing as low as 13th (Wake Forest finished 14th), whereas Notre Dame would have had to finish 8th to automatically qualify.

3. One team from among the champions of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference automatically qualify for a BCS game if either: A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or, B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.
4. Notre Dame will automatically qualify for a BCS bowl if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings.

[Ksyrup]

Michigan was only ahead of both teams because they played their games sooner then Florida and USC. As well, their big loss didnt come until their final game. Read this post, it makes sense:

Wrong. When each had only 1 loss, and immediately following the OSU game, Michigan was ranked ahead of both teams despite losing its last game. That means voters acknowledged they were the better team. IMO, neither USC's victory over a lesser-ranked ND nor UF's victory over a lesser-ranked Arkansas should have been sufficient to move them above Michigan.

It doesn't matter when the games were played, because a team's losses are supposed to knock them down. When Michigan lost and didn't move a spot, that was all the justification they needed to remaining #2 for the rest of the year. Apart from USC or UF beating Michigan or OSU in the final 2 weeks of the season (immpossible, I know, but the only way I would justify it), Michigan shouldn't have been dropped; or more correctly, they should have been dropped to #4 or 5 after the OSU loss, if that's where they were ultimately going to be voted.

[Brian Swartz]

IF (and this is the big IF) you vote Michigan number 2, you are stating that Michigan's loss to Ohio State meant nothing AND Florida's win over Arkansas meant nothing when it comes to the championship.

No I'm not. I'm stating that those two games are not strong enough to unbalance the body of work over the whole season. They are NOT meaningless, but not meaningful enough to overturn the rest of the year. The rest of the country agreed when Michigan was still #2 after the Ohio State game, two spots ahead of Florida.

the best non-subjective manner to judge these teams is how they did against BCS opponents. And, Florida has one more win than Michigan when that is measure.

I don't see how it is fairer or more objective to throw out the majority of both team's games. Really, I think that's just silly.

[Arles]

For those stating human bias against a rematch is the reason for the swap, I'd say look at the computer averages:

11/26:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. USC .940
3. Michigan .930
4. Florida .890

12/3:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. Florida .9405
3. Michigan .940
4. USC .860

So, Florida's win over Arkansas was enough to bump the computer averages from 4 to 2. Why, then, is it unfair that some humans agreed with the computers? Is there some kind of formula against rematches in the computers?

[Ksyrup]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">IF (and this is the big IF) you vote Michigan number 2, you are stating that Michigan's loss to Ohio State meant nothing AND Florida's win over Arkansas meant nothing when it comes to the championship. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The BCS fully took into account the biggest game of the year (or century, if we recall the hype) and ranked Michigan #2 AFTER they lost that game. Case closed. You either penalize them then and there, or you decide, as the voters/computers apparently did, that a 3-point loss on the road to the #1 team merited remaining #2.

Florida's win over Arkansas...seeing as though Michigan should have still been #2 after USC's win over ND, even if USC had beaten UCLA, Florida's win should have been enough to move them ahead of USC for #3, but no higher. I'm at a loss to understand how Michigan gets screwed here, given the vote/rankings after the OSU game. USC's and UF's end of season wins received entirely too much weight.

[wade moore]

USC's and UF's end of season wins received entirely too much weight.

Just one main thought... I personally think that winning your conference title should hold pretty big weight. After the OSU/UM game, UF had not won their conference title yet.

Then they did, and that is part of what bumped them up. I think the idea that at the end you're comparing UM who did not win their conference to UF that did win their conference (but had not before the last poll) and that seems logical to me.

[KWhit]

I love how so many people are arguing that "Michigan is the better team." We don't know that. Nobody knows that. With only 12 games (and only a handful of those being a real test to the elite teams), there is no way to know which team is better.

We don't even know which conference is tougher, becuase so few out of conference games between upper-tier teams are played. I think the SEC is tougher top-to-bottom than the Big Ten, but I have no idea if that is truly the case.

And you can look at margin of victory or how a team "looks" during its wins and losses, but that doesn't tell you anything either - not really. Some teams win "ugly," but they still win. Wins should be all that count.

So, there is NO WAY to know who should be playing for the title, not under this system. The current system of the human polls is worse than freaking figure skating which at least has some written guidelines for their judging. Here it's pretty much "Vote for the team you think is better - no matter if you have seen the games or not."

That is ridiculous! And I cannot believe that the fans put up with it. Not to mention the coaches.

I'll repeat the real problem with the system. There is no way to accurately distinguish which team is better or more worthy of a title shot between 1-loss teams (or multiple undefeated teams). There is just flat out NO WAY to do it.

The current system is a joke.

[Arles]

Florida's win should have been enough to move them ahead of USC for #3, but no higher. I'm at a loss to understand how Michigan gets screwed here, given the vote/rankings after the OSU game. USC's and UF's end of season wins received entirely too much weight.
Just ask the computers. They are supposedly unbiased and moved Florida from 4 to 2 based solely on the Arkansas win.

I think it comes down to the fact that both had a similar SOS, similar margin of victory, 2 good BCS wins and a top 10 loss. So, the difference "appears" to be Florida's 3rd win over a BCs team in defeating top 10 Arkansas in a neutral site. That was enough for the computers to switch, so I think an argument can be made that it's enough to move a human.

[Butter]

If you're a BCS anarchist, like myself, then the best scenario for you is an Ohio State HUGE win over Florida, and a Michigan blowout of USC. I don't get how Florida winning and splitting the national title would be an argument against the BCS. It would definitely create talk that they got the matchup right after all.

I wanted a OSU-UM rematch, if only to show that Ohio State would win by 21 on a neutral field. But anything that causes pain to Wolverine fans is OK by me.

Also, for those snickering about Ohio State's "gift" title in 2002, I'd be more than happy to show you a replay (if I had one) of Chris Gamble's late 4th quarter 3rd and 6-ish catch for a first down that was ruled out of bounds... which had it been ruled a catch would've allowed Ohio State to run out the clock. Had there even been replay then, it would've been overturned without question. He caught the ball, got a knee down and rolled out of bounds.

That said, Florida does remind me in many respects of the Ohio State 2002 title team... always under pressure, never looking impressive, but with a solid defense, a solid offense, and a will to win. It should be a good game.

[Arles]

We don't even know which conference is tougher, becuase so few out of conference games between upper-tier teams are played. I think the SEC is tougher top-to-bottom than the Big Ten, but I have no idea if that is truly the case.

Total BCS wins in conference:

Big 10: 4 by 2 teams

SEC: 11 by 6 teams

Outside of Michigan and Ohio State, no one in the Big 10 beat a BCS opponent. Heck, USC has as many BCS wins (4) as the entire Big 10. The main out of conference foe for the Big 10 was Notre Dame, and they were 1-3 against them. The only other BCS non-conference win was against No. 19 Texas by Ohio State. So, I think a real case can be made that we really don't know how good the Big 10 is.

All that said, we do need a playoff. There's no reason we can't go back to a 11-game schedule and have a 8-game playoff.

[Ksyrup]

Just ask the computers. They are supposedly unbiased and moved Florida from 4 to 2 based solely on the Arkansas win.

I think it comes down to the fact that both had a similar SOS, similar margin of victory, 2 good BCS wins and a top 10 loss. So, the difference "appears" to be Florida's 3rd win over a BCs team in defeating top 10 Arkansas in a neutral site. That was enough for the computers to switch, so I think an argument can be made that it's enough to move a human.

In a way, I'd almost rather the ranking be 100% computer-generated. I think it would sit better with me.

I think what should happen, since a playoff likely will not, is that each BCS conference should be required to play a championship game the first week of December. If Michigan played a championship game Saturday, even if their opponent wasn't as good as Arkansas, and they won decisively and the UFgame came out like it did, would the voters have moved Michigan down? I would hope not, and I think not.

It's up to the conferences, or the BCS powers that be to pressure the conferences, to have championship games. Then you get a last look at each contender at the same time, against fairly good-to-great competition. The urge to move one winning team over another would be lessened, even if those teams' opponents were not quite the same caliber. As it was, on Sunday morning there was only an argument to be made FOR UF, and nothing FOR Michigan, and that seems to be the difference.

[Arles]

dola, how about just a 4-team playoff?

Ohio State - LSU
Florida - Michigan

Wow, those would be some great games.

[Blade6119]

In a way, I'd almost rather the ranking be 100% computer-generated. I think it would sit better with me.

I think what should happen, since a playoff likely will not, is that each BCS conference should be required to play a championship game the first week of December. If Michigan played a championship game Saturday, even if their opponent wasn't as good as Arkansas, and they won decisively and the UFgame came out like it did, would the voters have moved Michigan down? I would hope not, and I think not.

It's up to the conferences, or the BCS powers that be to pressure the conferences, to have championship games. Then you get a last look at each contender at the same time, against fairly good-to-great competition. The urge to move one winning team over another would be lessened, even if those teams' opponents were not quite the same caliber. As it was, on Sunday morning there was only an argument to be made FOR UF, and nothing FOR Michigan, and that seems to be the difference.
:rolleyes:

You seem to be utterly ignoring the fact part of the reason they were ahead of UF and USC to begin with is that they played and won when the other teams werent playing...your argument of why michigan got shafted doesnt account for the opposite. Michigan got that high above the other teams by playing when USC and UF didnt. While i certainly understand if you think they are the number 2 team in the country, but i dont understand why people think they were soo screwed.

[KWhit]

Ksyrup,

I think what you're seeing this year is a bit of an abaration. Generally, teams have more to lose by playing in a Conference Championship game than they have to gain.

The thing that was different this year was the rematch factor. Most voters don't want to see a rematch. UM had their chance against OSU - Florida hasn't. When USC fell, voters looked at 2 teams with very similar resumes when looking at the total picture and decided that Florida should have a shot.

[Passacaglia]

If you're a BCS anarchist, like myself, then the best scenario for you is an Ohio State HUGE win over Florida, and a Michigan blowout of USC. I don't get how Florida winning and splitting the national title would be an argument against the BCS. It would definitely create talk that they got the matchup right after all.

I wanted a OSU-UM rematch, if only to show that Ohio State would win by 21 on a neutral field. But anything that causes pain to Wolverine fans is OK by me.

Also, for those snickering about Ohio State's "gift" title in 2002, I'd be more than happy to show you a replay (if I had one) of Chris Gamble's late 4th quarter 3rd and 6-ish catch for a first down that was ruled out of bounds... which had it been ruled a catch would've allowed Ohio State to run out the clock. Had there even been replay then, it would've been overturned without question. He caught the ball, got a knee down and rolled out of bounds.

That said, Florida does remind me in many respects of the Ohio State 2002 title team... always under pressure, never looking impressive, but with a solid defense, a solid offense, and a will to win. It should be a good game.

What do you mean, splitting the national title?

[Ksyrup]

That said, Florida does remind me in many respects of the Ohio State 2002 title team... always under pressure, never looking impressive, but with a solid defense, a solid offense, and a will to win. It should be a good game.

Blowouts aside, the game will likely be decided in the 3rd quarter. UF has consistently been very bad in the 3rd quarter. Had it not been for the muffed punt/TD Arkansas gave them that completely turned the game around, we might not be having this whole UF or UM discussion. And against FSU, FSU came from 55 yards of total offense in the 1st half to tie UF, despite throwing 3 INTs in the 3rd quarter alone!

Having said that, one big plus for UF's offense is that they seem to turn it on when it matters the most. Right after FSU scored to tie the game, they drove right down the field and put up the winning TD. And against Arkansas, they again rose to the challenge and scored when Arkansas threatened to come back. I think it will be a matter of whether the hole the create for themselves in the 3rd quarter will be too bif to overcome, or whether they are in control when it happens and can maintain the lead thereafter. Because from what I've seen, it'll only be a matter of when, not if, they suddenly look like a non-bowl team for 10 minutes of game time or so.

[Butter]

It's up to the conferences, or the BCS powers that be to pressure the conferences, to have championship games.

The Big Ten did have a de facto championship game this year... Ohio State won it. But if Notre Dame would just cave in and join the Big Ten, then the Big Ten could get in on it too.

I have to think this is a main reason why the Big Ten will expand sometime in the next few years. That extra championship game is just too lucrative to pass up. TV rights, ticket sales, potential extra BCS teams... you can't just leave all that on the table. At least it'll give something for the Big Ten Network to talk about for a while.

[Ksyrup]

Ksyrup,

I think what you're seeing this year is a bit of an abaration. Generally, teams have more to lose by playing in a Conference Championship game than they have to gain.

The thing that was different this year was the rematch factor. Most voters don't want to see a rematch. UM had their chance against OSU - Florida hasn't. When USC fell, voters looked at 2 teams with very similar resumes when looking at the total picture and decided that Florida should have a shot.

Which makes no sense to me, since - again - the voters decided right after the OSU game that Michigan was still #2. If you don't want a rematch, then you have to decide that the loss dropped them out of contention unless everyone else you were considering lost and they should get it only by default. The fact that most teams usually don't gain anything from winning makes this an even worse decision, IMO.

[Blade6119]

Blowouts aside, the game will likely be decided in the 3rd quarter. UF has consistently been very bad in the 3rd quarter. Had it not been for the muffed punt/TD Arkansas gave them that completely turned the game around, we might not be having this whole UF or UM discussion. And against FSU, FSU came from 55 yards of total offense in the 1st half to tie UF, despite throwing 3 INTs in the 3rd quarter alone!
Did you, who favores Michigan in this debate, even watch the Wolverines after the Notre Dame game back on Sept. 16? Or did they conveniently forget how they struggled with 6-6 Iowa, 4-8 Northwestern and 5-7 Ball frickin’ State in successive weeks? Yet somehow michigan almost beat OSU. To assume florida doesnt stand a chance is just stupid. But ill be fair and view both sides

Case for Michigan
1. Michigan is generally acknowledged by almost everyone as the nation's second best team. Even when USC was ranked number two, that was more of a function of the voters preventing a rematch than it was a confirmation of the Trojans.
2. The first game in Columbus didn't settle the issue in the minds of many. If you're a believer that home field advantage means three points, then Michigan and Ohio State are dead even. Now, many want to see what would happen on a neutral field.
3. Going into this last weekend, Michigan played the nation's third toughest schedule behind Cincinnati and one other team which will go nameless for a moment.
4. It's not like Florida showed great pizzazz getting to 12-1. There's a reason no one's been pushing the Gators for the national title; it has been a bit zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (Percy Harvin excluded). While style points shouldn't matter, Florida got sacked by Auburn in a 27-17 loss; the offense was shut down in the second half (but the defense was impressive). Michigan's one loss, of course, was as forgivable as it gets.
5. The offense should be every bit as good in a rematch with Ohio Stat, if not better. Mario Manningham was just getting back in the swing of things. One of the nation's best receivers, Michigan's offense is far more potent when he's 100% and rolling. Those 39 points and close to 400 yards of total offense weren't a fluke.

Case for Florida
1. Schedule, schedule, schedule. Going into the final weekend of the season, the Gators played the nation's toughest schedule, and it wasn't even close. The cumulative opposition winning percentage was 0.643. Number two Cincinnati was 0.622. That might not seem like much, but it is.
2. The SEC deserves a break. Auburn got hosed in 2003 when USC and Oklahoma squared off for the national title. If you believe the SEC is the nation's toughest conference, then its champion should go in.
3. Michigan didn't win it's own conference title. If you're the number two in your league, how is it possible, theoretically or practically, that you should be named the best team in the country?
4. Michigan beat an overrated Notre Dame team that had one win over a team with a pulse (Georgia Tech) and got by Wisconsin before the Badger offense, primarily the receivers, began to jell. Ohio State and Michigan basically fattened up their records against a horrible Big Ten while Florida ended up beating nine bowl teams and lost to one.
5. The defense is the real deal. The secondary might be a bit suspect, but the front seven, despite injuries, is rock-solid. Throw in a veteran quarterback like Chris Leak, and a head coach in Urban Meyer who doesn't lose when he gets more than two weeks to prepare, and you have a team more than good enough to not just challenge the Buckeyes, but beat them. Michigan had its chance, and lost.

[Butter]

What do you mean, splitting the national title?

There was talk earlier in the thread about how a split national title would be a BCS-implosion type event. Not that I think it would happen, but it could.

[Butter]

But ill be fair and copy this analysis from foxsports.com

Fix'd.

[wade moore]

Ksyrup,

I think what you're seeing this year is a bit of an abaration. Generally, teams have more to lose by playing in a Conference Championship game than they have to gain.

Not to mention the fact that UM would have played OSU if there was a championship game, so then what would you do if UM wins? UM vs. OSU? I mean, a Big Ten championship game would not have helped anything unless OSU won, again.

[wade moore]

Which makes no sense to me, since - again - the voters decided right after the OSU game that Michigan was still #2. If you don't want a rematch, then you have to decide that the loss dropped them out of contention unless everyone else you were considering lost and they should get it only by default. The fact that most teams usually don't gain anything from winning makes this an even worse decision, IMO.

UF was not SEC Champion when UM was #2. They had a similar resume to Arkansas at that point.

[Blade6119]

Fix'd.

actually its collegefootballnews.com, who foxsports bought a few years back. I dont claim to write it, i dont have that much respect for michigan in this debate.

[Passacaglia]

There was talk earlier in the thread about how a split national title would be a BCS-implosion type event. Not that I think it would happen, but it could.

Yeah, I read back and saw a little bit of that. Man, college football is screwy.

[Ksyrup]

The Big Ten did have a de facto championship game this year... Ohio State won it. But if Notre Dame would just cave in and join the Big Ten, then the Big Ten could get in on it too.

I have to think this is a main reason why the Big Ten will expand sometime in the next few years. That extra championship game is just too lucrative to pass up. TV rights, ticket sales, potential extra BCS teams... you can't just leave all that on the table. At least it'll give something for the Big Ten Network to talk about for a while.

Except that it wasn't. It was played too early and was one of their regular-season games. I'm not necessarily arguing for Michigan here, but in the abstract. What if we flip the UM/Wisconsin score and UW and OSU remain undefeated this year but don't play? Then you penalize the other conferences who do play conference championships and UF gets screwed. In this hypothetical situation, UW would likely have been ranked #2 and no margin of victory by UF over even a 1-loss Arkansas would have been enough to elevate them past UW (one would hope, at least given my beliefs on how voting should be handled).

Either way, the system doesn't work, but the bottom line is, it works far worse without conference championship games. We'll never have uniformity of schedules or conference strength, but we at least have the power to force all conferences to play a championship game.

[Butter]

More devil's advocate:

Let's say the BCS went to a plus-one type format.... we retain the current bowl matchups, then have a one-game playoff afterwards. If Ohio State loses, Michigan squeaks out a win, and Boise State blows out Oklahoma, who are the 2 plus-one teams?

[Ksyrup]

UF was not SEC Champion when UM was #2. They had a similar resume to Arkansas at that point.

Without all conferences playing a championship game, one team having the conference championship and another not is close to irrelevant to me. And it isn't a prerequisite for being in the BCS Bowl.

And also, UF and Arkansas did not have the same resume. Arkansas had 2 losses.

[bronconick]

Just a minor point.

Michigan was #3 in both polls behind USC after their loss to Ohio State. The computer numbers still had them sufficiently ahead of USC that they remained #2 in the BCS. USC beating and adding Notre Dame to their resume is what propelled them past Michigan in the computers, and thus, the BCS.

[st.cronin]

There is a common sense rule that if the BCS enacted none of you would protest, and if it were in play which would make this whole thread moot.

YOU MUST WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Michigan finished second in the Big 10. Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, Oklahoma, and Boise State all won their conferences. The contender should be chosen from that list, and of those teams really only Louisville has a comparable resume to Florida.

[Passacaglia]

Man, this whole thing is such a waste. Before all this BCS crap, you just played to win your conference. Ohio State won the Big 10. Florida won the SEC. Just end it there and be done with it! Then everyone except Notre Dame fans are happy.

[Celeval]

If Michigan played a championship game Saturday, even if their opponent wasn't as good as Arkansas, and they won decisively and the UFgame came out like it did, would the voters have moved Michigan down? I would hope not, and I think not.

What this argument seems to be lacking is if Michigan couldn't play a championship game against an opponent as good as Arkansas this weekend. Either they're in different divisions then OSU (and would have to play OSU for the title, which would be an entirely different question because there's your rematch), or they're in the same division as OSU in which case they wouldn't be in the conference championship game because, well, they didn't win their conference.

[wade moore]

Without all conferences playing a championship game, one team having the conference championship and another not is close to irrelevant to me. And it isn't a prerequisite for being in the BCS Bowl.

And also, UF and Arkansas did not have the same resume. Arkansas had 2 losses.

I was thinking Arkansas had the 2nd lost the weekend after the UM/OSU game, if I'm wrong, my apologies.

But, even without the conference championship game, UM didn't even win their regular season title. If we were talking about a scenario where USC was undefeated and a 1 loss OSU/UM who won the Big-10 regular season title vs. UF who won the SEC Title game I'd seen an argument.

But UM didn't win their regular season title. So, they won no title in any way shape or form.

[Butter]

Would Michigan and Ohio State be in the same division of a 2-division, 12 team Big Ten? I would think they'd have to be to keep up the rivalry. But that would be difficult in what has been such a top heavy conference of late.

[SelzShoes]

There is a common sense rule that if the BCS enacted none of you would protest, and if it were in play which would make this whole thread moot.

YOU MUST WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Michigan finished second in the Big 10. Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, Oklahoma, and Boise State all won their conferences. The contender should be chosen from that list, and of those teams really only Louisville has a comparable resume to Florida.

I might be, and probably am, wrong about this (I just started paying attention to college football this season) but wasn't there a big stink a few years ago because a team--I want to say Nebraska--that made the BCS Title game despite not winning their conference? If winning the conference was so important to the pundits that season, why is there so much Michigan love this season?

[Ksyrup]

Would Michigan and Ohio State be in the same division of a 2-division, 12 team Big Ten? I would think they'd have to be to keep up the rivalry. But that would be difficult in what has been such a top heavy conference of late.

Just based on geography they should be, but I don't think they have to be. They can still play a regular season game and not be in the same division.

[Gary Gorski]

There is a common sense rule that if the BCS enacted none of you would protest, and if it were in play which would make this whole thread moot.

YOU MUST WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Michigan finished second in the Big 10. Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, Oklahoma, and Boise State all won their conferences. The contender should be chosen from that list, and of those teams really only Louisville has a comparable resume to Florida.

You mean to tell me that conference winners Wake and Boise State are more deserving of playing in the national championship than a team that is far superior to them but finished 2nd in their conference? What if teams split their conference? Enacting such a written rule (apparently it is an unwritten one) would make the BCS even more of a waste than it already is. I would think it should be the two best teams in the country at the end of the season who should play for the championship. If you can argue that Florida would beat Michigan or has a superior team to Michigan, fine. But the fact that Michigan a) did not win their conference and b) lost to OSU should have no bearing on whether or not they are the 2nd best team in the nation.

This is what makes college basketball far superior - it ends up with the team that is the best team at the end of the season as the champions. You are rewarded for winning your conference or having a tough schedule by getting a potentially easier road to the championship. Everyone plays every team in their conference at least once (in all but the Big East) and all but the Ivy League have a conference tournament and most importantly the games are played out and the champions are decided by the kids - not by pollsters with agendas. Yes, inevitably some teams get "screwed" but they're the 66th or so best team in the country - not arguably one of the top two.

Seriously, how can you have two teams both be the "national champion"?

[st.cronin]

I might be, and probably am, wrong about this (I just started paying attention to college football this season) but wasn't there a big stink a few years ago because a team--I want to say Nebraska--that made the BCS Title game despite not winning their conference? If winning the conference was so important to the pundits that season, why is there so much Michigan love this season?

I think two or three years Oklahoma lost their championship game (to Kansas State, maybe) and still played in the BCS title. Really, people like to just piss and moan. I'm pretty sure that there's just as much bitching about the NCAA basketball tournament selections. If the BCS had a rule that you had to be a conference champion, then this thread would be asking why not Louisville, or Boise State, or Notre Dame, instead of Michigan.

[st.cronin]

You mean to tell me that conference winners Wake and Boise State are more deserving of playing in the national championship than a team that is far superior to them but finished 2nd in their conference?

Absolutely. Michigan has proven they are not equal to Ohio State - the other conference champions have not.

[Ksyrup]

I think two or three years Oklahoma lost their championship game (to Kansas State, maybe) and still played in the BCS title. Really, people like to just piss and moan. I'm pretty sure that there's just as much bitching about the NCAA basketball tournament selections. If the BCS had a rule that you had to be a conference champion, then this thread would be asking why not Louisville, or Boise State, or Notre Dame, instead of Michigan.

As I said above, being a conference champ is pretty much irrelevant to me, but I'd almost favor the rule now if it helped sort through the mess.

The March Madness tournament selections aren't as big a deal because (a) for the teams that clearly deserve to be there, you're just arguing over seeding, not whether they get the chance to compete; and (b) you can argue over not being a top 65 team, but that argument isn't quite as powerful as arguing you are a top 2 football team. Once there are 40-60 teams ahead of you no question, your argument gets a little weak.

[Ksyrup]

More devil's advocate:

Let's say the BCS went to a plus-one type format.... we retain the current bowl matchups, then have a one-game playoff afterwards. If Ohio State loses, Michigan squeaks out a win, and Boise State blows out Oklahoma, who are the 2 plus-one teams?


If this is the best playoff system we could ever get to, then I think what you would have to do is match up the top 4 teams against each other (1 v. 4, 2 v. 3) and stipulate beforehand that the winners of those games play each other in the final bowl game. Let everyone argue who should be in the top 4, but once it is decided, there can be no team other than 2 of those 4 that make it to the BCS Bowl, regardless of how those games or the remaining BCS games play out.

[Passacaglia]

I might be, and probably am, wrong about this (I just started paying attention to college football this season) but wasn't there a big stink a few years ago because a team--I want to say Nebraska--that made the BCS Title game despite not winning their conference? If winning the conference was so important to the pundits that season, why is there so much Michigan love this season?

I believe that was 2001. It was probably a bigger issue then because the conference champ, Colorado, was the team that got the shaft at #3. At least in this case, the conference champion is #1, so you can see why the #2 team might not win their conference.

[st.cronin]

I must be the only person in the world who likes the BCS system and is looking forward to some very intriguing bowl matchups.

[sooner333]

The funny thing is that if Boise State didn't qualify, the only other eligible team for the Fiesta Bowl would have been West Virginia.

[Ksyrup]

I must be the only person in the world who likes the BCS system and is looking forward to some very intriguing bowl matchups.

I'm looking forward to most of the matchups if I look at them in a vaccuum, but how we got there is what bothers me.

[Arles]

I'm on the fence with the BCS. Outside of the Rose, this season is one of the reasons I don't like it. The Sugar, Fiesta and Orange all figure to be blowouts (spreads over 8 points). It may end up that they are all compelling, but if we are going to use this BCS system, then I think we need to do it based solely on matchups for overall interest.

Here's what would be better (IMO):

Rose is USC v Michigan
Sugar is Oklahoma v LSU
Orange is Lousville v Notre Dame
Fiesta is Wake v Boise State

Now, you have more compelling matchups and a system where all 4 games figure to be close going in. That said, I still think we need atleast a 4 team playoff. Think about it, we could have:

Rose: USC v. OKlahoma
Fiesta: Wake v. Boise State
Third BCS site: Notre Dame v. Louisville

Sugar: Michigan v Florida (12/30)
Orange: Ohio State v LSU (12/30)
Glendale: Winner of Sugar and Orange (1/8)

[Warhammer]

First, some have been griping that UM played a game in September/October the other teams didn't play. USC made that game up this week. Florida made up that missed week with a game against FSU last week. Florida then played another game this week, yeah, that's right, Florida has played 13 games to UM's 12. I am willing to bet that every computer poll has either a number of wins, win %, or something along those lines in their formula. By any measure, UF has an inherent advantage because they are playing an extra game. Sure, they could lose, but even one cream puff is enough to push them over the top in the computers. Oh yeah, that third top 25 team they beat happened to be in their conference title game, or rather their 13th game.

Second, the BCS is about putting the #1 team vs. the #2 team. Not the #2 team that didn't play against the #1 team already, not the #2 team that won their conference, etc. The #1 is to play the #2 team.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not a UM or UF fan, I follow Memphis, Notre Dame, and Illinois. I've watched USC, UM, UL, and UF play. UM was the best team by far, with USC next, UL, and then UF. Yes, USC was inconsistent, but they were better than UF. UF got extremely lucky in several of their games, and they had several USC v. UCLA moments, they just didn't have that INT at the 19 at the end of the game, they would have marched the ball in and escaped with a narrow victory. I understand that that counts for something, but they got lucky. UM was far more dominating in their games, and let's not forget, they lost on the road to OSU. If their wins are basically a wash (forgetting about UF's 13th game), UM's loss to OSU is certainly better than UF's loss to Auburn. I watched both games and UM v. OSU was much closer than UF v. Auburn. Take away the late personal foul for the hit against Smith and UM wins that game.

The problem for the BCS is this ALWAYS happens. The only way that this thing works is if you have two undefeated teams. Even if you have two one-loss teams you can make the argument that a 2-loss team is better than a one-loss team based upon schedule strength, etc. With two undefeateds, you can always argue that they beat the teams laid in front of them, and thus deserve the shot.

The easiest way to settle this is to play an 11 game schedule with no bye weeks. Let's not forget that many schedules are made easier by when you have your byes, so we're going to play from Sept. 1 through the third week of November with no byes, that's 11 weeks. Then, we take the top 8 teams, you have to win your conference, let's say the big 6 (SEC, Big 10, Big East, ACC, Pac 10, and higher ranked Mtn West/Conf. USA/Best Independent) and then the two other highest ranked teams. Then, over the next 4 weeks you play the playoffs and finish right before Christmas, or we could stop after the second week of December and play the championship on New Year's Day. It's really not that hard to do.

[VPI97]

UM's loss to OSU is certainly better than UF's loss to Auburn. I watched both games and UM v. OSU was much closer than UF v. Auburn.
Really? I thought the opposite. Florida only lost to Auburn because of a controversial fumble call on Leak at the Auburn six yard line.

[Butter]

Take away the late personal foul for the hit against Smith and UM wins that game.

Take away the 2 OSU fumbles, and Ohio State wins by 20. Let's not play that game. Ohio State won, and proved they were the better team.

[Warhammer]

I believe that was 2001. It was probably a bigger issue then because the conference champ, Colorado, was the team that got the shaft at #3. At least in this case, the conference champion is #1, so you can see why the #2 team might not win their conference.

Also, Nebraska was killed by Colorado in the Big 12 championship game and another game down the stretch which was why everyone thought UC should play for the title.

[Warhammer]

Take away the 2 OSU fumbles, and Ohio State wins by 20. Let's not play that game. Ohio State won, and proved they were the better team.

OSU won the game, not arguing that. My point is that is a much better loss than UF's loss. I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble. Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call, but you still have some saying what-if about the OU v. Oregon game and the bad calls there.

EDIT: Bad calls are not the same as turnovers either. Hell, Denver doesn't turn the ball over 5 times last night, they win.

[Atocep]

OSU won the game, not arguing that. My point is that is a much better loss than UF's loss. I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble. Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call, but you still have some saying what-if about the OU v. Oregon game and the bad calls there.


So whichever loss the media hangs onto and dwells on is the better loss?


EDIT: I watched both the OSU/Michigan game and the Florida/Auburn game and both were close games. There's no point trying to differentiate between the two games.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call ...

Umm ... I've heard it bitched about.
(although not that much, most people aren't all that fond of U of F)

[VPI97]

I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble.
It really doesn't sound like you watched that game since the replay challenge was a huge moment during the game and the majority of write ups after the game prominently discussed the call. If you thought it was no big deal, then my guess is that you're in the vast minority.

[Warhammer]

So whichever loss the media hangs onto and dwells on is the better loss?


EDIT: I watched both the OSU/Michigan game and the Florida/Auburn game and both were close games. There's no point trying to differentiate between the two games.

But that is back to my point which I might not have stated earlier. We shouldn't have to interpret this stuff. But that is all we have to go on. Both teams have one loss, UL has one loss, how can we differentiate between any of the teams?

[Arles]

OSU won the game, not arguing that. My point is that is a much better loss than UF's loss. I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble. Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call, but you still have some saying what-if about the OU v. Oregon game and the bad calls there.
There was a ton of outcry after the game happened. You can also throw in LSU's loss at Auburn as another one a ton of ref outcry.

In fact, the Bowl Selection show had Leak's fumble as a key part of the discussion on Florida. Yet, I don't remember seeing anything on Michigan's personal foul.

You can play it the other way in that Michigan was fortunate enough to get a couple unforced errors by Ohio State and a dubious pass interference call late in the game JUST to lose by 3. Had Florida not had the incompletion/fumble result go against them, it would have been 4th and 3 at the Auburn 6. If you assume a FG, they go ahead 20-18 with 8 minutes left.

The point is that both were close losses against good teams. Try to differentiate on "who was closer to winning" is a little silly.

[MJ4H]

I was thinking Arkansas had the 2nd lost the weekend after the UM/OSU game, if I'm wrong, my apologies.




That's correct, the weekend of UM/OSU, Arkansas beat Mississippi State to go to 10-1. Loss to LSU was the Friday after Thanksgiving.

[gstelmack]

You mean to tell me that conference winners Wake and Boise State are more deserving of playing in the national championship than a team that is far superior to them but finished 2nd in their conference? What if teams split their conference? Enacting such a written rule (apparently it is an unwritten one) would make the BCS even more of a waste than it already is. I would think it should be the two best teams in the country at the end of the season who should play for the championship. If you can argue that Florida would beat Michigan or has a superior team to Michigan, fine. But the fact that Michigan a) did not win their conference and b) lost to OSU should have no bearing on whether or not they are the 2nd best team in the nation.

This is what makes college basketball far superior - it ends up with the team that is the best team at the end of the season as the champions. You are rewarded for winning your conference or having a tough schedule by getting a potentially easier road to the championship. Everyone plays every team in their conference at least once (in all but the Big East) and all but the Ivy League have a conference tournament and most importantly the games are played out and the champions are decided by the kids - not by pollsters with agendas. Yes, inevitably some teams get "screwed" but they're the 66th or so best team in the country - not arguably one of the top two.

Seriously, how can you have two teams both be the "national champion"?

First off, no sport has "the two best teams at the end of the season". College basketball has "the two best tournament teams" (you'd have a hard time arguing that George Mason was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but they got hot). Now, I'm not saying that the college basketball system isn't good, 'cause I think it is and I think it does an excellent job of crowning a "National Champion". I'm just saying I don't think anyone can ever figure out who the "best" team really is, but you can come up with a good definition for "National Champion", and basketball does a good job of fulfilling their definition. I just don't think that they are a good case for "2 best teams in the country".

But my case for the "Must be a conference champion" rule in college football is predicated on keeping the current BCS "single championship game" premise. It's absolutely insane / ludicrous / makes no sense for a team that is not its conference champion to be crowned a national champion given this sytem. With a single game, you need two conference champions playing, period. You've made the decision that the conferences decide who represents them in the BCS, then you give out a couple of at-large bids to handle Notre Dame / other independents and the mid-major conferences if one gets hot. Sure, if no other candidates qualify, you bring in non-conference champions, but that should be to fill out bowls with compelling matchups, NOT to go for the championship. In the current system, the regular season is filling the role of a limited playoff, and if you can't get out of it, why should you get a crack at the NC?

Right now, Boise State and Wake Forest ARE more deserving of an NC crack than Michigan, because Michigan had a crack and blew it. However, Florida is even more deserving, so they should get the shot.

Now, all of this goes out the window if they decide to get some sanity and go to a playoff. Then the regular season is posturing for seeding / home-field (so it means something), and you crown a "National Champion" (not the "best" team) after a tournament. Either you need a playoff where these teams that don't mix it up during the regular season get their cracks, or you stop pretending you are somehow crowning a "champion". But if you are going to pretend, at least be consistent, and stop someone who couldn't win their conference from getting a crack at the bigger award.

I think the BCS would do a decent job of seeding teams for a tourney (at least if you took the completely subjective human element out of it), but as for picking a "champion", it sucks.

[mtolson]

For those stating human bias against a rematch is the reason for the swap, I'd say look at the computer averages:

11/26:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. USC .940
3. Michigan .930
4. Florida .890

12/3:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. Florida .9405
3. Michigan .940
4. USC .860

So, Florida's win over Arkansas was enough to bump the computer averages from 4 to 2. Why, then, is it unfair that some humans agreed with the computers? Is there some kind of formula against rematches in the computers?


Were did you get Florida having .9405 from. Everywhere I looked, its show .9400 or .940 for both teams. Just curious.

[mtolson]

The problem for the BCS is this ALWAYS happens. The only way that this thing works is if you have two undefeated teams.

It won't even work then. We have two undefeated teams now.

[wade moore]

That's correct, the weekend of UM/OSU, Arkansas beat Mississippi State to go to 10-1. Loss to LSU was the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Shew.. my point is still relatively valid then in the context of what KSyrup is saying...

The Monday after the OSU/UM game you had OSU, then a 1 loss UM, USC, UF, and Arkansas.

So, as far as UF not being at #2 at the time, how do you differentiate between UF and Arkansas? You don't know until they play (or in this case Arkansas lost the following week)..

[Mr. Wednesday]

Were did you get Florida having .9405 from. Everywhere I looked, its show .9400 or .940 for both teams. Just curious.
He's maybe not throwing out high/low, then Florida gets an edge over Michigan. UM has three threes and three twos. UF has three threes, two twos, and a one.

[sooner333]

It was likely USC's loss that helped out Florida the most in the computers as there were a few that went 2. Mich 3. USC 4. FLA. Even if Florida didn't pass Michigan, they still gained a spot while Michigan stayed the same...thus even if Florida didn't play, the USC loss made Florida a higher ranked team.

[Galaxy]

I'd prefer a 16-team playoff. Each conference gets an autobid (ends the charade of having to cook up special stuff to get e.g. Boise State in), which leaves five at-large teams (or possibly six this year, as one non-BCS conf. may not qualify). Max three per conference instead of two.

Personally, I think 16 teams is way too big.

[Ksyrup]

Shew.. my point is still relatively valid then in the context of what KSyrup is saying...

The Monday after the OSU/UM game you had OSU, then a 1 loss UM, USC, UF, and Arkansas.

So, as far as UF not being at #2 at the time, how do you differentiate between UF and Arkansas? You don't know until they play (or in this case Arkansas lost the following week)..

That's between those two teams, and has nothing to do with Michigan. Between all of those 1-loss teams, the voters saw fit to rank Michigan ahead of them even though they had just lost. Assuming Arkansas hadn't lost a second game and either Arkansas or UF came out of the SEC title game with only one loss, the voters had already stated that neither of those teams was #2.

I guess the bottom line for me is...if you are going to still rank Michigan (or any team, for that matter) #2 immediately following their only loss, there is no justification for dropping them later. None. The point at which they lost is their weakest, and thus, you drop them for having lost. If you don't, you are saying that despite losing, they are better than all other 1-loss teams. UF's win over Arkansas did not wipe out UF's 1 loss. Any other result is inconsistent.

Look, the voters saw this coming. They also moved USC over Michigan, nevermind UF. They should have built in a drop for Michigan that gave them wiggle room to proclaim the "next best team we see" to be #2. But they didn't. They voted Michigan #2 knowing that USC had 2 more games, that UF was going to play 2 more games, including a conference title game, and that Michigan wasn't going to play again. The proper thing to do would have been to rank Michigan, say, 5th, and then moved them back up by default as the teams ahead of them lost. If those teams didn't lose, then Michigan is never "back in the title hunt" to begin with. This controversy only erupted because of where Michigan sat in the rankings the day after their only loss.

I know, my problem is that I'm looking for consistency and rational behavior out of bunch of nimwits with the attention span of gnats. But still, that's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm not necessarily arguing the merits of Michigan over UF, but merely that Michigan, by virtue of the process and where they sat in the rankings, should not have been dropped.

[Galaxy]

I wonder how much Notre Dame's loss to USC impacted Michigan in the computers.

Also, how much was Florida punished for playing a 1-AA team?

[VPI97]

I know, my problem is that I'm looking for consistency and rational behavior out of bunch of nimwits with the attention span of gnats. But still, that's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm not necessarily arguing the merits of Michigan over UF, but merely that Michigan, by virtue of the process and where they sat in the rankings, should not have been dropped.
Did you have the same level of indignation for the pollsters when they chose to move Michigan ahead of teams that didn't lose when they beat Notre Dame?

[Leonidas]

So if OSU takes care of business and wins this thing are we still gonna have controversy (ie: incessant whining)?

[Ufer]

Much more important: If it's true, or even just believed, I am concerned about favoring teams that play later games. My understanding is that the Big Ten does not want its "student-athletes" (and many of them are) playing games between Thanksgiving and finals, and that's part of the reason for no conference championship game. I hope we're not encouraging teams to play more and more games in December.

I'm obviously an unhappy U-M fan but I won't repeat all the arguments other than to say that I don't believe the voters believe Florida is better than Michigan, they were just looking for a way to keep Michigan out. If USC had won, Michigan would've stayed ahead of Florida in the polls. I believe the way the system is supposed to work, Michigan should've gone but anyway, if we win the Rose Bowl, go 12-1 and finish #2, that's an awesome season. Ever since the Fab 5 scandal, I've toned down my desire for national championships.

A friend who is a USC fan said: "Now that USC is out, I don't care about Michigan or Florida but this screws the fans. Just like when they sent Oklahoma to play us -- and I was so happy we played Oklahoma instead of Auburn -- and when they sent Nebraska, the fans get the crappier match-up. OSU-Michigan would've been a game for the ages just like last year. Florida will probably be a crappy game."

[wade moore]

I know, my problem is that I'm looking for consistency and rational behavior out of bunch of nimwits with the attention span of gnats. But still, that's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm not necessarily arguing the merits of Michigan over UF, but merely that Michigan, by virtue of the process and where they sat in the rankings, should not have been dropped.

We have opposite problems with the voters then.

Personally, the biggest problem I see with the polls is the fact that the only way you see movement in the polls is when a team loses and moves down. I think that quality wins should cause teams to move up ahead of teams with off weeks or lesser quality wins more often. This idea that you can't move down unless you lose in that week is one I do not like at all.

[Ufer]

Also, doesn't prove anything for U-M or Fla but the coaches have no idea what they're voting for. They only watch game film of their upcoming opponents. Unless they played Michigan or Florida (and one of those guys chickened out probably to avoid "bulletin-board" material for whoever OSU would play), most haven't ever seen either team play.

For all those who say a conference runner-up shouldn't be in the NC game, if Arkansas had beaten Florida, should Oklahoma or Arkansas have gone to the BCS game?

[Ksyrup]

Did you have the same level of indignation for the pollsters when they chose to move Michigan ahead of teams that didn't lose when they beat Notre Dame?

That was in October. Completely different set of circumstances. Michigan was ranked #2 following their only loss in their last game of the season, and every voter knew that fact.

Personally, I don't think polls/BCS rankings should be even taken until maybe mid-November. That way you don't have teams hanging around the top 20 on reputation (yes, like my FSU) when they don't deserve it, or upstarts getting such a late jump on being ranked that they are fighting an uphill, impossible situation to get into a good ranking position.

[Arles]

He's maybe not throwing out high/low, then Florida gets an edge over Michigan. UM has three threes and three twos. UF has three threes, two twos, and a one.
Yeah, I probably should have stated how I got that result. If you take the sum of the 6 computer polls, Florida rates higher. Now, this isn't how the BCS does it, but it does show that it isn't unreasonable for someone to go from having Florida at 4 to 2 based solely on the Arkansas game. That's basically what the computers said as a whole.

[VPI97]

That was in October. Completely different set of circumstances.
No it isn't...it's pretty much the exact same thing. It seems that you have no problem with Michigan jumping over teams that didn't lose, yet struggle with the reality that Florida did the same thing.

I understand it's a rivalry thing, so I can see where your motivation is coming from. But at least a part of you has to admit that moving UF to the #2 spot isn't anything new for the pollsters. Reshuffling teams like that happens on a weekly basis.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Personally, I think 16 teams is way too big.
Any smaller requires leaving out non-BCS conferences (undesirable), coming up with ad hoc rules to get them in (undesirable), or no at-large bids (undesirable).

I think 16 gets the best balance of major-conference participation (a total of 11 bids, between automatic and at-large) and minor-conference participation (no one gets shut out).

It shouldn't be a problem with the number of games, as I-AA, er, the Championship Division manages a 16-team playoff just fine.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Also, how much was Florida punished for playing a 1-AA team?

If you're talking computers, I don't know how they would have handled it, but I would expect either complete indifference (ignored entirely) or a very marginal benefit (since UF is so much better than the 1-AA team, their chances of losing were very small, so it does very little for their rating to win the game).

I would not trust any ranking that actually punished them for playing that game in any way other than an opportunity cost sense (i.e. that they could have been beating a better team); whatever else I might think of the decision to play the game, it's asinine to punish a team for winning a game. As far as I'm concerned, the opportunity cost is sufficient.

[Ksyrup]

I understand it's a rivalry thing, so I can see where your motivation is coming from. But at least a part of you has to admit that moving UF to the #2 spot isn't anything new for the pollsters. Reshuffling teams like that happens on a weekly basis.

As much as it sucks for me to have UF (not to mention OSU) in the title game and Michigan not, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with the teams involved. I have a theoretical problem with how this played out. Teams being reshuffled in the rankings 3 weeks into the season is completely different than voting to keep the #2 at #2 after they lost their final game of the season. I understand reshuffling happens all the time, I just take the view that you aren't just "rewarding" the team moving up, but also "punishing" the team moving down. So I think there needs to be a reason on both ends of it to make a switch, especially given the stakes here. And a month into the season, teams are playing nearly every week and reshuffling is going to happen.

But here, the voters knew Michigan was not going to play another game, and they still ranked them #2 after they lost. There was no justification/excuse for moving both USC and UF above them, other than the fact that the voters simply voted the "most recent hot chick I saw" higher than the hot chick they saw the week earlier. The reasons for voting Michigan #2 didn't just disappear into thin air.

[Arles]

I completely get what Ksyrup is saying I think the problem is that people are expecting a perfect result from an imperfect system. I think gstelmack has the best post of the thread.

Should Michigan be punished and moved out of the championship when they didn't play? On its face, I'd say no. However, when you have no playoff and deal with numerous "viable" contenders, you have to have a somewhat unbiased way to separate them.

Before the Arkansas game, Michigan had a higher SOS, the same number of BCS wins as Florida and neither were conference champs. So, Michigan's "better loss" put them ahead in many people's eyes (including the CPUs). The fact that Florida's win over Arkansas gave them a SOS higher than Michigan, more BCS wins AND made them conference champs means that there is a very legit case for them to be ranked higher than Michigan. And that's why they passed Michigan on the sum of the CPUs (as well as some of the poll voters).

I understand reshuffling happens all the time, I just take the view that you aren't just "rewarding" the team moving up, but also "punishing" the team moving down.
I think what everyone needs to realize is that there are going to be seasons where a certain team will be denied a chance at a title simply because someone else had a tougher SOS and/or more top wins. There's nothing really fair about it, but with an imperfect system it's the only unbiased way to deal with similar teams.

[flounder]

I think what everyone needs to realize is that there are going to be seasons where a certain team will be denied a chance at a title simply because someone else had a tougher SOS and/or more top wins. There's nothing really fair about it, but with an imperfect system it's the only unbiased way to deal with similar teams.

Don't worry. They'll tweak the formula in the offseason and everything will be just super.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I also understand what Ksyrup is saying, but he has to realize that there is no written rule in polls that late in the season a team cannot be dropped in the polls if they don't lose. It's not a rule (I know he knows that, but it must be remembered). Now, out of convention, many voters act this way but as Arles pointed out, this particular set of circumstances warranted a departure from the convention.

To clear up the Nebraska deal back in 2001. Nebraska, not only did not win the Big 12, but failed to make the championship game at all after Colorado waxed them 62-36 in Colorado in the last regular season game.

At the time the teams played, Nebraska was ranked #2 or #3 I think, and Colorado was ranked #9. It was Nebraska's only loss of the season (until losing to Miami in the championship game), but Colorado already had two losses at the time (including a very bad loss to Fresno State to start the season). After the game, Colorado moved up some and Nebraska dropped but Nebraska stayed ahead of Colorado (something like numbers 4 and 6). Colorado did not go ahead of Nebraska because there were a lot of better one loss teams in between. Colorado then went on to squeak out a win against 10-1 Texas in the Big 12 championship. The real chaos started when Tennessee (ranked 2nd), who would have been slotted to play Miami for the national championship, lost in the SEC championship game [And that is important to note that risk if one chooses to believe Florida should get no credit to jump Michigan for putting it on the line to beat Arkansas on the final week this season].

So Colorado still had two losses as compared to Nebraska's one loss, which I think is huge, but nonetheless, because of Colorado's win over Texas in the Big 12 championship game, the human polls moved Colorado ahead of Nebraska one spot (EVEN THOUGH NEBRASKA DID NOT PLAY OR LOSE) because the pollsters reshuffled things. The human polls ended with Miami at #1, Oregon at #2, Colorado at #3 and Nebraska at #4. The pollsters obviously believed a two loss team was better than the one loss team because they had beaten them head to head. Unfortunately, this did not help Colorado because on the last week of the season, some unrelated game helped to improve Nebraska's strength of schedule number (I believe it was the opponent of one of Nebraska's opponents got a good win). So, Nebraska managed to stay ahead of Colorado in the BCS rankings, but BARELY. As for Oregon, ranked #2 by the human polls, the PAC-10 sucked that year and Oregon's weak strength of schedule dropped them to 4th in the BCS.

In the end, Miami beat Nebraska easily for the national championship. But interestingly, Oregon completely crushed Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl 38-16. Oregon ended the season (with one loss) and ranked 2nd behind Miami.

The point here is teams get screwed left right and center all the time. Forget about Colorado, what about Oregon getting screwed. They played everyone they could and won their conference. However, in the BCS, they actually were behind a 2-loss team (including a loss against Fresno State) and a one loss team that didn't even make it to its conference championship. And what about Nebraska? They didn't play on the final week of the season but got passed in the human polls by a 2-loss team that got a big win. Colorado's gripe was similar but getting waxed by Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl didn't help in the end.

But my real point here is what a cluster f%ck that year was compared to this one. None of this is new. Give Auburn a call.

[WVUFAN]

Much more important: If it's true, or even just believed, I am concerned about favoring teams that play later games. My understanding is that the Big Ten does not want its "student-athletes" (and many of them are) playing games between Thanksgiving and finals, and that's part of the reason for no conference championship game. I hope we're not encouraging teams to play more and more games in December.

So the Big Ten doesn't play any basketball games between Thanksgiving to the finals? Shoddy argument.

This year, I think the pollsters has Michigan high because they forsaw USC and Ohio State in the NC. There was NEVER a realistic chance that Michigan was gonna go to the NC because a)most people that aren't Michigan fans don't want to see a rematch and, b)how can you justify Michigan being a "national" champion when they're not the champion of their own conference? When Florida won -- when pollsters saw them, saw that there was another viable CONFERENCE CHAMPION alternative to a rematch, they took it.

And probably more than a few remember the Auburn fiasco from a few years back and realize the SEC gets screwed quite a bit in the national championship picture.

[Passacaglia]

Also, Nebraska was killed by Colorado in the Big 12 championship game and another game down the stretch which was why everyone thought UC should play for the title.

Nebraska and Colorado are both in the Big 12 North. And it's CU.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I thought I cleared that up a few posts above.

[Passacaglia]

I thought I cleared that up a few posts above.

Yep. I just hadn't read it yet.

[JW]

Another problem that needs to be considered in 'fixing' the system is the automatic bias toward teams that start high in the PRESEASON rankings. Where you are positioned to start the season has an impact for the rest of the season. That positioning can be overcome, but a team's ranking before a single game is played can have a huge impact if that team continues to win. LSU's ranking for example was high at the start of the season thanks in part to its big bowl win the previous season over Miami, which may or may not make much sense. And the thinking of LSU fans is that LSU can possibly improve its #4 ranking with a win in the Sugar Bowl, thus setting LSU up for a top three preseason ranking in 2007 and a run at a national championship, especially since LSU doesn't have to face Auburn, Florida, Tennesse, and Arkansas on the road. That may not be fair, but that is the way the game is played.

[Brian Swartz]

Only way to do that is to throw out human polls altogether. I don't see that happening. I wouldn't mind it, but most would.

[JW]

Only way to do that is to throw out human polls altogether. I don't see that happening. I wouldn't mind it, but most would.

Some have suggested that there not be any human polls until after the season is underway, maybe 2-4 weeks into the season.

[Brian Swartz]

Yes, but there's no way the media would do that, it would destroy all the buzz from their preseason polls and given them less to endlessly and pointlessly speculate about. It's one of those it'd-be-nice-but-hasn't-a-snowball's-chance ideas. And frankly, there's way too many fans addicted to them as well.

[sooner333]

Yeah, that 2001 season was pretty crazy. The week into the Neb/CU game, Nebraska was #1, Miami #2, Oklahoma #3 (lost to Nebraska), Florida #4, and Oregon #5, Texas #6, Tennesse #7, and Illinois #8 (!) all with one loss. Colorado was all the way at #14 hurt by two losses and a poor computer ranking (also 14th in the polls).

Nebraska lost to Colorado on Friday, then Oklahoma who controlled its own destiny was upset by Oklahoma State in Norman. Which made the standings Miami, Florida, Texas, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Colorado, Illinois. Nebraska was hurt by OU losing, but because they were still at #9, they still got some quality win bonus.

The first round of conference championship games occured (remember 9/11 messed up the schedule pretty majorly). Colorado beat Texas and Florida lost as well. However, Tennessee jumped to #2 from #6. The standings were Miami, Tennessee, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Stanford (!).

The last week Tennessee lost, giving Nebraska a .05 advantage in the 2 spot. The voters did move Colorado ahead of Nebraska without either team playing a game. However, it was the extra loss that did Colorado in (because losses were part of the BCS) and the computer polls. They almost made up for it with two huge wins over Nebraska and Texas as well as the 2nd hardest SOS. Oregon had the worst schedule of any of the four and only one quality
win over #12 Washington State.


The Pac Ten was not horrible that year, however, as they had 4 of the top 15 teams in the final BCS (#4 Oregon, #9 Stanford, #12 Washington State, and #15 Washington). The Big Ten was the non-factor with Illinois as the only team in the top 15.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Nicely done, your memory was even better than mine. I thought CU moved ahead after winning the Big 12, but you're right -- they moved ahead without either of them even playing a game. I am pissed at that even more now that I remember it.

[Cuckoo]

...then Oklahoma who controlled its own destiny was upset by Oklahoma State in Norman.

I was at that game. Talk about the suck.

[cartman]

Colorado beat Texas

I was at that game. I remember that after Nebraska and Oklahoma lost the weekend before, I went onto eBay, and literally every single ticket for the game was on sale. :) That was the loudest game I ever attended. Because the game was the last one on conference championship day, Texas knew that if they won, they were probably in the BCS title game. Chris Simms had his typical big game brain fart in the first half, but Major Applewhite almost led Texas back for the win. Probably would have except for a roughing the punter call with a couple of minutes left. Texas was the first victim of the 'only 2 teams from a conference can go to a BCS game' rule. Which they were bitten by again two years later when K-State beat Oklahoma.

[JW]

Yes, but there's no way the media would do that, it would destroy all the buzz from their preseason polls and given them less to endlessly and pointlessly speculate about. It's one of those it'd-be-nice-but-hasn't-a-snowball's-chance ideas. And frankly, there's way too many fans addicted to them as well.

That's true. And that is why LSU fans are saying a top three ranking in the preseason polls would be important for a title run. Of course you still have to win your games, but it is better to start closer to the top.

[Craptacular]

Would Michigan and Ohio State be in the same division of a 2-division, 12 team Big Ten? I would think they'd have to be to keep up the rivalry. But that would be difficult in what has been such a top heavy conference of late.

Just based on geography they should be, but I don't think they have to be. They can still play a regular season game and not be in the same division.

I knew there was a question in here I forgot to respond to. As Ksyrup said, they could be put in opposite divisions and still play every year. If you assume Notre Dame would be the 12th team, and split them up by geography (they wouldn't have to), I think you'd have to go N-S instead of E-W to have a somewhat balanced conference, and maintain as many intra-division rivalries as possible. It could be:

North:
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Michigan
Michigan St

South:
Illinois
Notre Dame
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio St
Penn St

Each team would face the other five from their division, one "permanent" rival from the other division (to keep OSU-Mich, Ill-North, etc), and two other teams from the opposite conference on a rotating basis.