This year, it seems apparent that these are (arguably) the best two teams in college football. Yet one will lose when they play each other at the end of the season, meaning that the loser will have no shot at the national title game simply by having the misfortunate of also playing in the Big Ten. That means that (assuming that USC loses), Auburn, USC, Florida or Texas will make the BCS championship game simply by virtue of having lost earlier in the season. That seems unfair.
Since these two teams are yearly national championship contenders, should they look into moving this game up in their schedules to account for this?
Let's table the "playoff" debate for another day.
wildcatlh
10-25-06, 02:01 PM
While I agree with you to some extent, it's not necessarily the case that whoever loses is out of the title race. See Nebraska, 2001. See also Florida, 1996. UF lost their final regular-season game to FSU (and FSU and UF were the top 2 teams in the country at the time), still ended up in the title game, and beat FSU in a rematch for the title at the Sugar Bowl.
Edit: Also, assuming everyone else had 1 loss, I could see whoever loses this game remaining #2 in the BCS. Especially if it's close.
DVD Josh
10-25-06, 02:06 PM
Well teams normally drop at least 3-4 spots after a loss. The loser would probably have to drop to no worse than 3 and not at all in a couple polls to stand a reasonable chance of still making the title game. Out of curiousity, were either of your two examples in the BCS era?
Lunatikk
10-25-06, 02:14 PM
Well teams normally drop at least 3-4 spots after a loss. The loser would probably have to drop to no worse than 3 and not at all in a couple polls to stand a reasonable chance of still making the title game. Out of curiousity, were either of your two examples in the BCS era?
Nebraska was BCS, Flordia was not.
twikoff
10-25-06, 02:14 PM
nope
the big ten (11) should pick up another team and play a real conference championship game
then it wouldnt matter when they scheduled their yearly matchup
Jericho
10-25-06, 03:07 PM
While I agree with you to some extent, it's not necessarily the case that whoever loses is out of the title race. See Nebraska, 2001. See also Florida, 1996. UF lost their final regular-season game to FSU (and FSU and UF were the top 2 teams in the country at the time), still ended up in the title game, and beat FSU in a rematch for the title at the Sugar Bowl.
Edit: Also, assuming everyone else had 1 loss, I could see whoever loses this game remaining #2 in the BCS. Especially if it's close.
Actually Florida in 1996 fell to third (also aided by the fact that Ohio St. also lost the same weekend, else Ohio St. would also have been ahead of them) and only "won" the national title because the two top teams, FSU and Arizona St. couldn't play each other. That would never happen today, as the Pac-10 is part of the BCS now.
I can't really speak to Nebraska in 2001, but I suspect with the current modified BCS formula, Nebraska also wouldn't have a shot at the title.
To answer the original question, yes they should move their game. Miami/FSU did this for the same reasons. Late losses always are more costly. Tenneessee benefited most of the '90s from this, as they would lose early to Florida, then bypass all the other one loss team by season's end (including at times Florida, who would lose to FSU).
harrydoyle
10-25-06, 03:21 PM
I agree that the Big 10 needs a 12th team so it can play a championship game. OSU and Michigan already get way too much street cred in the Big 10 on an annual basis. A championship game will lessen the effect that the Michigan/OSU game has as being more important than all the others in the Big 10 annually.
Pharoh
10-25-06, 03:22 PM
No.
das Monkey
10-25-06, 03:35 PM
No. The winner of that game deserves the riches. The NCAA football season is a wacky season-long unbalanced tournament. I don't want to hear about neutral sites blah blah blah -- if you can't win that game during the regular season, you have no claim to the national title. It may work out where you still get a shot and you may win it all, but I don't want to hear any bitching about it if you don't. The winner of that game <i>deserves</i> the shot. The loser may be <i>fortunate</i> enough to get one.
das
RayChuang
10-25-06, 03:57 PM
Not move the date, but they should consider moving the time.
Now that ABC has college football telecasts at 2000 hours ET/1700 hours PT during the season, from now on the Ohio State/Michigan game should always be on at 2000 hours ET--the ultimate way to end that weekend of college football. :up:
paulringodaman
10-25-06, 04:13 PM
i love the military time.....and man i hope osu wins that!!
Red Dog
10-25-06, 04:36 PM
If moving it helps get us closer to a playoff I'm for it. If not, I'm against it.
harrydoyle
10-25-06, 05:00 PM
My system would definitely be an 8 team playoff with 6 conference winners and two at-large bids, and the conference winners would either have to win a championship game or play every team within their conference.
wildcatlh
10-25-06, 05:05 PM
My system would definitely be an 8 team playoff with 6 conference winners and two at-large bids, and the conference winners would either have to win a championship game or play every team within their conference.
Nah. You're just trying to exempt the Big 10, since they're the only conference that doesn't apply to.
The Cow
10-25-06, 05:13 PM
No. The winner of that game deserves the riches.
Yep, and I'd even prefer to drop the whole BCS stuff and go back to where that meant who goes to the Rose Bowl, when that was a good thing.
kenbuzz
10-25-06, 05:15 PM
No. The winner of that game deserves the riches. The NCAA football season is a wacky season-long unbalanced tournament. I don't want to hear about neutral sites blah blah blah -- if you can't win that game during the regular season, you have no claim to the national title. It may work out where you still get a shot and you may win it all, but I don't want to hear any bitching about it if you don't. The winner of that game <i>deserves</i> the shot. The loser may be <i>fortunate</i> enough to get one.
dasDas:
I may be misremembering you, but a couple of years ago when Oklahoma lost the Big XII title game yet still got invited to the Sugar Bowl (against USC?) and you defended the situation. My position back then was that if Oklahoma wasn't the best in their conference, they couldn't be the best in the country, so they shouldn't've been invited. You argued (then) that winning your conference doesn't mean you're the best -- you just happened to be the best that day. (And there's a whole can of worms just waiting to be opened if we press along this line of reasoning, so let's get back to the point I'm trying to make.)
So, isn't what you've just said a pretty strong counter-argument against a conference's non-champion playing in the BCS title game against a team from a different conference?
Quake1028
10-25-06, 05:22 PM
This year, it seems apparent that these are (arguably) the best two teams in college football. Yet one will lose when they play each other at the end of the season, meaning that the loser will have no shot at the national title game simply by having the misfortunate of also playing in the Big Ten. That means that (assuming that USC loses), Auburn, USC, Florida or Texas will make the BCS championship game simply by virtue of having lost earlier in the season. That seems unfair.
Since these two teams are yearly national championship contenders, should they look into moving this game up in their schedules to account for this?
Let's table the "playoff" debate for another day.
The UM-FSU rivalry has been ruined in the past few years. Part of it is the teams aren't as good as they once were, but another part of it is that it is now the first game of the season. I hate it. I needs to go back to late October like it always was.
El Scorcho
10-25-06, 05:26 PM
Actually they should cancel the game so we can have more undefeated teams at season's end to throw the BCS into a frenzy.
kenbuzz
10-25-06, 05:27 PM
Oh, and to answer the OP's question .... no. While the Ohio State-Michigan game dosen't always determine the Big 10, it sure seems like it does more often than not (or one team has a shot to spoil the others' bid). I like it where it is ... makes it more meaningful - particularly in a world where the post-season seems relatively meaningless except to two hand-picked schools.
Josh H
10-25-06, 05:29 PM
That means that (assuming that USC loses), Auburn, USC, Florida or Texas will make the BCS championship game simply by virtue of having lost earlier in the season. That seems unfair.
Actually, it's probable that WVU or Louisville will be undefeated and will get the spot in the game.
L'ville may get leapt by a one loss team, but I doubt WVU would give that they are currently ahead of all the 1 loss teams in the BCS and have their toughest part of the schedule coming up which will improve their poor computer ranking some.
In that case, it's not unfair at all as the loser of OSU/Michigan was already proven inferior to the winner, thus letting another undefeated team get a shot (rather than having a rematch) is perfectly fair.
Any time it's a bunch of 1 loss teams vying for a spot it's going to be a crapshoot, and we all know having a playoff is the only way to avoid that crap of earlier losses seemingly mattering more than later ones.
TheDude
10-25-06, 07:15 PM
The UM-FSU rivalry has been ruined in the past few years. Part of it is the teams aren't as good as they once were, but another part of it is that it is now the first game of the season. I hate it. I needs to go back to late October like it always was.
I thought the FSU-UM rivalry was moving back to late Oct. They had a 3 year deal w/ ABC to broadcast it on labor day, and that deal expired this year (at least that's what I heard on one of the sports talk shows a few weeks ago).
das Monkey
10-25-06, 07:51 PM
• kenbuzz •
Das:
I may be misremembering you, but a couple of years ago ...
:lol: Stalker alert! Dude, I have no idea. I'm not above arguing against my own opinion, or coming up with an elaborate scheme that links two seemingly disparate arguments, but I honestly don't remember that discussion (nor would I really care if I did ;)). Now that I think about it, though, I seriously doubt I would have argued that position. I remember supporting USC pretty heavily with their triple-OT loss on the road being the only blemish on their record.
Anyway, my opinion has always been as far back as I can remember that there are certain teams who deserve to play for the championship and others who get fortunate enough to be there based on circumstances. It's why I'll never support a playoff system that involves more than 4 teams, because you'll never convince me that 5 teams actually deserve it. In 2003, neither K. State nor OU deserved it. OU was just fortunate enough to make it.
I also don't buy into "Conference Championship" games. They're money-makers for the conferences. They create them for money and then whine when others don't follow suit. Tough shit. If Notre Dame doesn't want to share, more power to them. If the PAC-10 and Big-10 want the season to determine their champion and not a single game, more power to them. As such, I don't really put that much stock in the winner of a conference championship game. It has meaning in certain areas, but simply winning it doesn't mean you're better than some other team in the conference. It just means you won that game. There are riches that come with that, but I'm a supporter of the season as a whole, not single games. Often times, within the context of the season, that game has great meaning, but it's not always the case.
Relating all this back to my comments on the OSU/Michigan game, I'm reasonably assuming that they both go into this game undefeated. The winner should then get the riches. If one of them has 3 losses (like I believe K. State had), and the other is undefeated (like OU in '03), that's another situation entirely.
das
Daryl
10-25-06, 10:34 PM
A few quick thoughts on some of the points in this thread:
1) the game HAS been moved. It's at 3:30 :grumble:, when it's always been a 12 or 1pm game ;)
2) a big :thmbsdwn: to a B10 conference championship. I'd rather see: play all 10 other teams and only two non-conference games. Or my personal favorite: boot PSU and play all 9 teams and 3 non conference
3) The loser of the upcoming game doesn't belong in the BCS championship game. You had your chance, you lost. Even if Michigan loses (which they won't)
Quake1028
10-25-06, 10:43 PM
I thought the FSU-UM rivalry was moving back to late Oct. They had a 3 year deal w/ ABC to broadcast it on labor day, and that deal expired this year (at least that's what I heard on one of the sports talk shows a few weeks ago).
I pray you are right sir.
DVD Josh
10-26-06, 08:14 AM
Actually, it's probable that WVU or Louisville will be undefeated and will get the spot in the game.
L'ville may get leapt by a one loss team, but I doubt WVU would give that they are currently ahead of all the 1 loss teams in the BCS and have their toughest part of the schedule coming up which will improve their poor computer ranking some.
In that case, it's not unfair at all as the loser of OSU/Michigan was already proven inferior to the winner, thus letting another undefeated team get a shot (rather than having a rematch) is perfectly fair.
Any time it's a bunch of 1 loss teams vying for a spot it's going to be a crapshoot, and we all know having a playoff is the only way to avoid that crap of earlier losses seemingly mattering more than later ones.
I did forget about those two teams. UL is a bona fide contender, but I think that WVU's poor SOS will hurt them in the BCS rankings. Even though they are undefeated, I do not think the pollsters consider them an "elite" team. They are not. They will make a BCS bowl, and I predict that they will lose handily.
As to OSU / UM, if there are two unbeaten teams, then of course, this whole argument is a moot point. However, it seems to me that if there are numerous one loss teams, being dominant for 95% of the season only to be penalized for a late loss to the #1 or #2 team in the country seems like a poor reason not to make the title game, when those other teams with 1 loss didn't lose to a team like OSU or UM.
cdollaz
10-26-06, 08:39 AM
However, it seems to me that if there are numerous one loss teams, being dominant for 95% of the season only to be penalized for a late loss to the #1 or #2 team in the country seems like a poor reason not to make the title game, when those other teams with 1 loss didn't lose to a team like OSU or UM.
Univ. of TX would have the same claim that Michigan does as their only loss would be to OSU. The difference is that UT would have won a conf. championship game and that should give them the edge over a team that didn't.
wendersfan
10-26-06, 08:41 AM
No.I concur. It's the highlight of fall quarter.
wendersfan
10-26-06, 08:42 AM
Even if Michigan loses (which they won't)rotfl
Seriously, sir, you crack me up...
rotfl
wildcatlh
10-26-06, 08:55 AM
I pray you are right sir.
He's right. It's going back to October next year.
DVD Josh
10-26-06, 09:16 AM
Univ. of TX would have the same claim that Michigan does as their only loss would be to OSU. The difference is that UT would have won a conf. championship game and that should give them the edge over a team that didn't.
I would agree if that was the case this year.
Daryl
10-26-06, 10:02 AM
Univ. of TX would have the same claim that Michigan does as their only loss would be to OSU. The difference is that UT would have won a conf. championship game and that should give them the edge over a team that didn't.
One would think that going into South Bend and beating the #2 team in the nation by 20+ points would rank somewhere near beating a team you already beat (that's probably not even the second best team in the conference) a second time in a conference championship game
Pharoh
10-26-06, 10:35 AM
rotfl
Seriously, sir, you crack me up...
rotfl
rotfl
And me as well.
:)
cdollaz
10-26-06, 10:37 AM
One would think that going into South Bend and beating the #2 team in the nation by 20+ points would rank somewhere near beating a team you already beat (that's probably not even the second best team in the conference) a second time in a conference championship game
Near, maybe, but until the Big 10 has a champ. game I will give other conferences a preference over them.
Daryl
10-26-06, 10:49 AM
rotfl
And me as well.
Always happy to entertain!! I entertained many of my Notre Dame friends earlier this year, as well. ;)
WallyOPD
10-26-06, 11:10 AM
Near, maybe, but until the Big 10 has a champ. game I will give other conferences a preference over them.
Why? If the championship game is a matchup of two top teams I can understand giving the winner an edge (merely because they beat a top team, not because the game is called a "championship"), but the Big 12 championship game is rarely that. Why should beating a mediocre team matter so much?
Josh H
10-26-06, 11:50 AM
I did forget about those two teams. UL is a bona fide contender, but I think that WVU's poor SOS will hurt them in the BCS rankings. Even though they are undefeated, I do not think the pollsters consider them an "elite" team. They are not.
They're already 4th and ahead of all the 1 loss teams in the polls and the BCS standings so I don't see it being an issue.
Their SOS will go up a good deal if they win out as they will beat Louisville and Rutgers who are high in the BCS as well, and Pitt who have a decent SOS themselves. All of those are on the road as well, which will help with pollsters.
Louisville schedule is just as bad. They have the win at home over Miami that would normally stand out, but with Miami sucking and going to end up with 4 or 5 losses that isn't going to remain a quality win.
They will make a BCS bowl, and I predict that they will lose handily.
Just like last year right? When they didn't have a chance yet beat the conference champion from the consensus best conference in their own backyard right?
atari2600
10-26-06, 11:57 AM
This year, it seems apparent that these are (arguably) the best two teams in college football. Yet one will lose when they play each other at the end of the season, meaning that the loser will have no shot at the national title game simply by having the misfortunate of also playing in the Big Ten. That means that (assuming that USC loses), Auburn, USC, Florida or Texas will make the BCS championship game simply by virtue of having lost earlier in the season. That seems unfair.
Since these two teams are yearly national championship contenders, should they look into moving this game up in their schedules to account for this?
Let's table the "playoff" debate for another day.
i dont agree it should be moved up but i agree the college football system is stupid and horribly organized.
atari2600
10-26-06, 11:58 AM
I agree that the Big 10 needs a 12th team so it can play a championship game. OSU and Michigan already get way too much street cred in the Big 10 on an annual basis. A championship game will lessen the effect that the Michigan/OSU game has as being more important than all the others in the Big 10 annually.
why does the big 10 need a 12th team so it can play a championship game?
atari2600
10-26-06, 11:59 AM
My system would definitely be an 8 team playoff with 6 conference winners and two at-large bids, and the conference winners would either have to win a championship game or play every team within their conference.
:thumbsup:
atari2600
10-26-06, 11:59 AM
rotfl
Seriously, sir, you crack me up...
rotfl
sorry but hes right.
cdollaz
10-26-06, 12:02 PM
Why? If the championship game is a matchup of two top teams I can understand giving the winner an edge (merely because they beat a top team, not because the game is called a "championship"), but the Big 12 championship game is rarely that. Why should beating a mediocre team matter so much?
Because a top team who has to play in a championship game is taking another chance at losing and a Big 10 team does not take that chance. As long as the Big 10 is stubborn about it I hope the other conferences are given preference.
Jeremy517
10-26-06, 12:03 PM
why does the big 10 need a 12th team so it can play a championship game?
The original point of the game (other than money) was to solve the problem that teams couldn't play every other team in their conference. AFAIK, the NCAA won't allow a championship game with less than 12 in the conference.
Josh H
10-26-06, 12:17 PM
AFAIK, the NCAA won't allow a conference game with less than 12 in the conference.
Correct. That is indeed the NCAA role and why the ACC had to bring in 3 more teams to have a title game.
Daryl
10-26-06, 12:42 PM
Because a top team who has to play in a championship game is taking another chance at losing and a Big 10 team does not take that chance.
That's the penalty they should pay for their greed. Conference championships are about 1 thing only: $$$$$
WallyOPD
10-26-06, 12:44 PM
Because a top team who has to play in a championship game is taking another chance at losing and a Big 10 team does not take that chance. As long as the Big 10 is stubborn about it I hope the other conferences are given preference.
I prefer to judge teams based on their merits and not who played the most games. Also how is the Big 10 being stubborn? As already mentioned they would need to add an additional team to be allowed to have a conference championship game.
cdollaz
10-26-06, 12:44 PM
That's the penalty they should pay for their greed. Conference championships are about 1 thing only: $$$$$
Bowls are only about money as well. Should we not play them?
cdollaz
10-26-06, 12:53 PM
I prefer to judge teams based on their merits and not who played the most games. Also how is the Big 10 being stubborn? As already mentioned they would need to add an additional team to be allowed to have a conference championship game.
Fine. How do you judge the merits then? Polls? With the polls it is all about guessing and opinions anyway. It was brought up earlier that Michigan beat #2 Notre Dame so that should weigh in their favor as much as another team winning a conf. championship. I don't agree. ND was #2 at that point based on an early season poll and early season polls really mean nothing to me. They shouldn't even have polls until the season is at least half over.
Bottom line is that until their is a playoff and it is settled on the field, there is no true to determine the merits of any team. Going undefeated is the best way at this point, but even then, a team like West Virginia might very well go undefeated but I don't know anyone who truly thinks they are one of the best 2 teams in the country.
Daryl
10-26-06, 01:32 PM
Bowls are only about money as well. Should we not play them?
:rolleyes: I never said don't play championship games, I suggested that it is foolish to place over-emphasis on their importance. In that sense, yes, they ARE just like all of the bowl games (BCS championship game being the exception if you are someone who cares about the MNC)
cdollaz
10-26-06, 01:37 PM
:rolleyes: I never said don't play championship games, I suggested that it is foolish to place over-emphasis on their importance. In that sense, yes, they ARE just like all of the bowl games (BCS championship game being the exception if you are someone who cares about the MNC)
It is also foolish to place over-emphasis on someone beating a so-called #2 team early in the year as that team may not have any business being #2 or anywhere near it.
Daryl
10-26-06, 01:40 PM
It is also foolish to place over-emphasis on someone beating a so-called #2 team early in the year as that team may not have any business being #2 or anywhere near it.
sort of like OSU beating Texas....
cdollaz
10-26-06, 01:44 PM
sort of like OSU beating Texas....
Yes. OSU shouldn't be given too much credit for beating a team that had no business being ranked #2 at that point.
Buy: