|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 6, 2009 0:19:23 GMT -5
Bickering over Texas and TCU aside, think about this. Right now there are 5 unbeatens left heading in to the bowls. FIVE. FIVE teams played the entire schedule they were given, including conference championships in some cases, and ran the table. Three of them will not even be given an opportunity to complete to play for the National Championship. That's so messed up. And I thought Auburn six years ago was a shaft job. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I just think under this messed up system it did do its job and is going to match up the teams who had the two best seasons.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Dec 6, 2009 0:20:33 GMT -5
I think Penn State, Iowa, and Ohio State would all beat TCU more often than not. OU, Texas, Oklahoma State, and Nebraska would do the same in the Big XII I am sorry, I am a Big 10 fan but, every team in it was s*** this year, have been for several years. Against good OoC teams, they suck. B12 wise, like we saw tonight, their D would keep them in it but, TCU is just better. OKSU would give them a tough 1/2 but, not a game. Texas would not stand a chance. People seriously forget how good TCU is, they have been a good to great team for at least 6 years now. If they had the Big 12 money machine behind them, they would be where Texas is. Since 2005 (the first year a non-BCS school was let into a BCS bowl game) the records for the conferences are: Big 12: 3-4 (With a national championship) Big 10: 2-7 Non-BCS: 3-1 (The MWC was 2-0) There is no reason to say the elite teams from the MWC are worse than the elite Big 10 teams.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 6, 2009 0:25:10 GMT -5
I am sorry, I am a Big 10 fan but, every team in it was s*** this year, have been for several years. Against good OoC teams, they suck. B12 wise, like we saw tonight, their D would keep them in it but, TCU is just better. OKSU would give them a tough 1/2 but, not a game. Texas would not stand a chance. People seriously forget how good TCU is, they have been a good to great team for at least 6 years now. If they had the Big 12 money machine behind them, they would be where Texas is. Of the top teams in the Big Ten they've played 2 good OoC teams. They're 1-1 Oklahoma State would give them a tough half, but Texas wouldn't stand a chance? Even though Texas DESTROYED Oklahoma State? TCU is very good, and if they were in the Big XII with the Big XII money machine behind them you could very well be right. But they're not. Misspoke/typed I had Tech on the mind for a comparison that escapes me. Here is my biggest problem with the BCS: Money. The NCAA has long denied a playoff for D1 schools because "It would interfere with studies" but, has no problems with D1A (or whatever it is called) or any other division. Hell, they encourage it in basketball because of the cash it brings in and, basketball draws that cash because little schools have a chance because conference money doesn't matter. It should be like that in football. Hell, App. State beat a #5 Michigan team 3 years ago (though we should not have been ranked to start). However, no "minor" team will have a show as long as the same 6 conferences BUY the "national" championship via ESPN/ABC and the BCS. To dismiss a team because of their conference is disrespectful to the kids and coaches on those teams. I am sorry, I am a Big 10 fan but, every team in it was s*** this year, have been for several years. Against good OoC teams, they suck. B12 wise, like we saw tonight, their D would keep them in it but, TCU is just better. OKSU would give them a tough 1/2 but, not a game. Texas would not stand a chance. People seriously forget how good TCU is, they have been a good to great team for at least 6 years now. If they had the Big 12 money machine behind them, they would be where Texas is. Since 2005 (the first year a non-BCS school was let into a BCS bowl game) the records for the conferences are: Big 12: 3-4 (With a national championship) Big 10: 2-7 Non-BCS: 3-1 (The MWC was 2-0) There is no reason to say the elite teams from the MWC are worse than the elite Big 10 teams. I am not, I said they were better than the B10.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 6, 2009 0:26:57 GMT -5
I am sorry, I am a Big 10 fan but, every team in it was s*** this year, have been for several years. Against good OoC teams, they suck. B12 wise, like we saw tonight, their D would keep them in it but, TCU is just better. OKSU would give them a tough 1/2 but, not a game. Texas would not stand a chance. People seriously forget how good TCU is, they have been a good to great team for at least 6 years now. If they had the Big 12 money machine behind them, they would be where Texas is. Since 2005 (the first year a non-BCS school was let into a BCS bowl game) the records for the conferences are: Big 12: 3-4 (With a national championship) Big 10: 2-7 Non-BCS: 3-1 (The MWC was 2-0) There is no reason to say the elite teams from the MWC are worse than the elite Big 10 teams. How many times did the MWC team have to play a de facto road game against USC?
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Dec 6, 2009 0:29:11 GMT -5
Since 2005 (the first year a non-BCS school was let into a BCS bowl game) the records for the conferences are: Big 12: 3-4 (With a national championship) Big 10: 2-7 Non-BCS: 3-1 (The MWC was 2-0) There is no reason to say the elite teams from the MWC are worse than the elite Big 10 teams. How many times did the MWC team have to play a de facto road game against USC? The MWC has a combined 0 wins in bowls in that time against USC. The Big 10 has the same amount.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 6, 2009 0:31:31 GMT -5
Since 2005 (the first year a non-BCS school was let into a BCS bowl game) the records for the conferences are: Big 12: 3-4 (With a national championship) Big 10: 2-7 Non-BCS: 3-1 (The MWC was 2-0) There is no reason to say the elite teams from the MWC are worse than the elite Big 10 teams. How many times did the MWC team have to play a de facto road game against USC? That is the B10's own damn fault for holding on to a stupid tradition. If they would be willing to try something new, they might win more.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 6, 2009 0:31:30 GMT -5
Of the top teams in the Big Ten they've played 2 good OoC teams. They're 1-1 Oklahoma State would give them a tough half, but Texas wouldn't stand a chance? Even though Texas DESTROYED Oklahoma State? TCU is very good, and if they were in the Big XII with the Big XII money machine behind them you could very well be right. But they're not. Misspoke/typed I had Tech on the mind for a comparison that escapes me. Here is my biggest problem with the BCS: Money. The NCAA has long denied a playoff for D1 schools because "It would interfere with studies" but, has no problems with D1A (or whatever it is called) or any other division. Hell, they encourage it in basketball because of the cash it brings in and, basketball draws that cash because little schools have a chance because conference money doesn't matter. It should be like that in football. Hell, App. State beat a #5 Michigan team 3 years ago (though we should not have been ranked to start). However, no "minor" team will have a show as long as the same 6 conferences BUY the "national" championship via ESPN/ABC and the BCS. To dismiss a team because of their conference is disrespectful to the kids and coaches on those teams. I just don't like using isolated instances of upsets to prove an overall point. There are several factors that go into upsets in a one game scenario. Appy State beat Michigan. Good for them. 99 times out 100 they lose the game. The point is not that a 12-0 TCU team on a given day couldn't beat 'Bama or Texas. The point is they wouldn't be 12-0 with 'Bama or Texas's schedule. They'd never get through that schedule unbeaten. Could TCU win that game? Absolutely. How many times would they do so out of 10? Like 2 or 3.
|
|
THE Baldy Kendrick
Dennis Stamp
may be an ursaring, may not.
I hear dem shoutin'.
Posts: 3,895
|
Post by THE Baldy Kendrick on Dec 6, 2009 0:32:34 GMT -5
Since 2005 (the first year a non-BCS school was let into a BCS bowl game) the records for the conferences are: Big 12: 3-4 (With a national championship) Big 10: 2-7 Non-BCS: 3-1 (The MWC was 2-0) There is no reason to say the elite teams from the MWC are worse than the elite Big 10 teams. How many times did the MWC team have to play a de facto road game against USC? Take those three out, it's still 2-4. His point still stands.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 6, 2009 0:32:43 GMT -5
How many times did the MWC team have to play a de facto road game against USC? The MWC has a combined 0 wins in bowls in that time against USC. The Big 10 has the same amount. Point?
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 6, 2009 0:35:57 GMT -5
How many times did the MWC team have to play a de facto road game against USC? Take those three out, it's still 2-4. His point still stands. How many times did they have to play the National Champion in the BCS Title game? Also...and this really doesn't help my point, but still. There have been a lot of times the second place team in the Big Ten gets an at-large spot they probably don't deserve because the Big Ten teams travel so well and have such large fan bases. We'll get a good look this year I think, because we're probably going to see Boise State face Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 6, 2009 0:36:51 GMT -5
Misspoke/typed I had Tech on the mind for a comparison that escapes me. Here is my biggest problem with the BCS: Money. The NCAA has long denied a playoff for D1 schools because "It would interfere with studies" but, has no problems with D1A (or whatever it is called) or any other division. Hell, they encourage it in basketball because of the cash it brings in and, basketball draws that cash because little schools have a chance because conference money doesn't matter. It should be like that in football. Hell, App. State beat a #5 Michigan team 3 years ago (though we should not have been ranked to start). However, no "minor" team will have a show as long as the same 6 conferences BUY the "national" championship via ESPN/ABC and the BCS. To dismiss a team because of their conference is disrespectful to the kids and coaches on those teams. I just don't like using isolated instances of upsets to prove an overall point. There are several factors that go into upsets in a one game scenario. Appy State beat Michigan. Good for them. 99 times out 100 they lose the game. The point is not that a 12-0 TCU team on a given day couldn't beat 'Bama or Texas. The point is they wouldn't be 12-0 with 'Bama or Texas's schedule. They'd never get through that schedule unbeaten. Could TCU win that game? Absolutely. How many times would they do so out of 10? Like 2 or 3. The thing is, football is based on being better on THAT day, not a series and under this current system, we will never know who the better team is. Would Mich destroy App 75% of the time, I hope (though I have my doubts with the current regime) but, App State still deserves a chance to prove themselves. BSU, TCU and Cincy deserve a chance to show how good they are against the best, not the second best. Remember your little story of the BCS boys laughing off Iowa earlier in the year? These 3 teams are now in the spot because they do not have the money of Texas.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Dec 6, 2009 0:40:02 GMT -5
The MWC has a combined 0 wins in bowls in that time against USC. The Big 10 has the same amount. Point? Without USC in the equation the Big Ten are 2-4 in BCS bowls, the only two wins were a triple overtime game against the #22 team in the nation that had no business being in title contention to begin with and an impressive showing against a strong Notre Dame team. The MWC is 2-0 with beatdown of a #21 ranked team in 2005 and a sound victory over an excellent Alabama team last year.
|
|
BK From WV
Hank Scorpio
Claims to have sense of humor, probably stole it
I'm Here
Posts: 5,609
|
Post by BK From WV on Dec 6, 2009 0:41:41 GMT -5
I've always thought it was stupid that the Pac-10 champ and Big 10 Champ always played in the Rose Bowl. That pretty much gives the Pac-10 a home field advantage every year. I know it's this long standing tradition but if they are invested in those two champs playing,I think it should be held in Texas where neither team has a real advantage. Same way how Boise State always played in the Humanitarian Bowl and Hawaii always played in the Hawaii Bowl. Just never seemed fair to me. I know it's not going to change but that always just irked me.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Dec 6, 2009 0:42:35 GMT -5
from ESPN; Blind Resumes
Team 1 Losses: 0 vs. Ranked Opp: 3-0 Opp win pct: .515 PPG: 39.8 Win Margain: +19.1
Team 2 Losses: 0 vs. Ranked Opp: 2-0 Opp win pct: .495 PPG: 40.7 Win Margain: +28.3
Team 3 Losses: 0 vs. Ranked Opp: 2-0 Opp win pct: .529 PPG: 40.7 Win Margain: +25.5
All pretty even, to me.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by nate5054 on Dec 6, 2009 0:45:32 GMT -5
Yeah, they could have been from a real pathetic conference like the Big 10 or the Big 12. Both of which are better than the Mountain West. Not by much if at all this year.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 6, 2009 0:48:19 GMT -5
Take those three out, it's still 2-4. His point still stands. How many times did they have to play the National Champion in the BCS Title game? They also got f***ed out of playing for the National Title 3 times. I say 3 because even though they were undefeated Hawaii, was borderline BCS worthy. Everyone including Hawaii fans knew they would get blitzed against Georgia. Utah got screwed in the 2004 season because of 3 other teams being unbeaten. Utah should have had a chance. Boise State was undefeated, got to the Fiesta Bowl and beat a damn good Oklahoma team. They finished the season unbeaten but never got a shot to prove they were the best in the nation. Utah last season, went undefeated and dominated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Of course they didn't get a shot to be the National Champions. They haven't gotten it, because they've gotten f***ed over by a bad system. And with Boise State and Utah last season, they didn't exactly play bad teams.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 6, 2009 0:49:52 GMT -5
from ESPN; Blind Resumes Team 1Losses: 0 vs. Ranked Opp: 3-0 Opp win pct: .515 PPG: 39.8 Win Margain: +19.1 Team 2Losses: 0 vs. Ranked Opp: 2-0 Opp win pct: .495 PPG: 40.7 Win Margain: +28.3 Team 3Losses: 0 vs. Ranked Opp: 2-0 Opp win pct: .529 PPG: 40.7 Win Margain: +25.5 All pretty even, to me. Three is Texas. 1 is TCU and 2 is ALA.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Dec 6, 2009 0:50:26 GMT -5
How many times did they have to play the National Champion in the BCS Title game? They also got f***ed out of playing for the National Title 3 times. I say 3 because even though they were undefeated Hawaii, was borderline BCS worthy. Everyone including Hawaii fans knew they would get blitzed against Georgia. I completely disagree with that, they were getting just as much hype for winning as any of the other small schools in big bowls in recent years. Im a mod on a College Football/NFL Draft site, and remember it well.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 6, 2009 1:02:41 GMT -5
As for the poll question, I voted Suh. I have always been an line guy and feel they never get the credit they deserve.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Dec 6, 2009 1:04:24 GMT -5
Oh hey a poll question! Ingram for me. Ingram-Suh-Gerhart-Spiller-Gilyard, as I posted earlier.
|
|