NCAA Football 2008 Discussion - It All Starts Here.
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
Exactly
But that system is no less arbitrary than than the Big 12's current tiebreaker.
Imagine if Texas' win over Oklahoma had been given more weight by the BCS voters and computers, and the Sooners had finished at #8 in the rankings, just behind Texas Tech (#7).
Instead of a #2 Texas team representing the south division in the championship, a #7 Texas Tech team would go, because the Sooners would drop out of the three-way tie first, and then Texas Tech would win the head-to-head. Texas would in a sense be punished for beating Oklahoma too badly.
I don't see why that tiebreaker's any better than just choosing the highest-ranked team in the BCS. Any way you do it, someone's going to get a raw deal.
Speaking of which, I know a team that would be delighted to switch likely bowl destinations with Texas. Come to think of it, now that Oklahoma has advanced, that leaves just two Big 12 South teams tied at 11-1; head-to-head would be a nice tiebreaker to use to decide between them, wouldn't it?
Not if the records are as close as they are for both Texas and Oklahoma. It's THAT simple.
Face it. no system will satisfy everybody. For every solution that is proposed in here, there is an equally good counter argument. Why do you think there's no consensus out there in the sports world, among sports professional people who know an awful lot more than we do?
If this situation had occurred in other BCS conferences:
Big10 - Texas, because they did not play an FCS opponent
Pac10 - Oklahoma, highest BCS ranking
SEC - Texas, because they're within 5 BCS slots of Oklahoma and beat them head to head
ACC - Oklahoma, highest BCS ranking
Big East - Oklahoma, highest BCS ranking
Big10 - Texas, because they did not play an FCS opponent
Pac10 - Oklahoma, highest BCS ranking
SEC - Texas, because they're within 5 BCS slots of Oklahoma and beat them head to head
ACC - Oklahoma, highest BCS ranking
Big East - Oklahoma, highest BCS ranking
Well, Charlie Weis is returning next season, which I think is great. Notre Dame needs a coach with such a talent for winning like Charlie Weis.
So, we can pretty much agree that Texas Tech is getting no love
Auburn has just fired Tommy Tuberville, which I have to think is a mistake. This was certainly a bad year, and I do think he made a mistake by tinkering with the offense so much, but Tuberville is a good coach. I felt the same way about Phil Fulmer, though. Tuberville and Fulmer are the only coaches to lead their schools through a tough SEC schedule undefeated since Gene Stallings in 1992. You should give these coaches a second chance.
I say let OU and Texas play a one game play-off. Winner gets Mizzou. Hell, they don't even have to play the whole game. Play OT. Play a Quarter. Do something other than use the BCS to break a tie. Truthfully, flipping a coin would be better than that.
Sorry to hear Auburn fired Tuberville. After 10 above-average seasons, he deserved another year. Well, at least he get's a big buy-out. Good luck Tuberville.
Sorry to hear Auburn fired Tuberville. After 10 above-average seasons, he deserved another year. Well, at least he get's a big buy-out. Good luck Tuberville.
Gee, would Texas Tech be allowed to watch? Would they get in if the coin landed on its edge?
A slight edge is an edge nonetheless. Oklahoma has done more ... and more than enough to justify their place in the BCS rankings over Texas.
On the other hand, I think the Big 12 should have gone to Texas. They're the only ones of the three that won on a neutral field. All the others held serve at home. Advantage: Texas.
That depends on your evaluation of said arguments, now doesn't it?
Because the controversy fuels the sport's popularity? Because it justifies their jobs? Because it causes people to buy into the possibly specious notion that they "know an awful lot more than we do" (as relates specifically to the ability to formulate a substantive opinion on the matter)? Because we find the debate entertaining?
This is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, a season-ending playoff would, ultimately, hurt college football. Its uniqueness is part of its popularity, and most myopically demanding a playoff will be sorry once (and if) they get it.
And what about Utah in all this? They have wins over Texas Christian, Oregon State, Air Force and BYU, plus the mystique of being unbeaten. They scheduled Michigan in good faith, thinking it would represent a real challenge to go into The Big House and defeat them.
I'm not saying they should win the argument, but ... surely they deserve a larger part in this conversation than they're receiving?
I'll say this right now ... if the eventual BCS title game winner has a loss (and any other than an undefeated Alabama would), and Utah wins its BCS game over a high-quality opponent in impressive fashion, they have a real claim—not necessarily the strongest claim, but a valid one—on the national championship, no matter how the coaches or writers vote.
I'm not saying they should win the argument, but ... surely they deserve a larger part in this conversation than they're receiving?
I'll say this right now ... if the eventual BCS title game winner has a loss (and any other than an undefeated Alabama would), and Utah wins its BCS game over a high-quality opponent in impressive fashion, they have a real claim—not necessarily the strongest claim, but a valid one—on the national championship, no matter how the coaches or writers vote.
That's my point. It isn't "more than enough" because all you need to do is look around the news world and you' won't find a consensus on who should be in that title game. Opinions are so varied that it doesn't even come close to a clear stance on who should be there.
One of the strongest points to make is that who plays in that championship game was directly affected by someone other than Texas or Oklahoma. had Tech not been able to eke out that game against Baylor, Texas would be going to the championship - no questions asked.
Consequently, it cannot be conclusively true the Oklahoma has done more to earn that right. You & I may feel they should be there, but there are some very sound arguments for Texas being there.
Why yes, yes it does.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else in here is employed in a job where we are to watch a host of games each week, review reams of material, talk to a host of people personally involved in these games, etc. etc. etc. IOW, sure we can create cogent arguments on which team belongs where, but odds are we are still significantly less qualified than say a Stewart Mandel, Ivan Maisel or Kirk Herbstreit to make an evaluation.
I honestly don't believe we will get a overall playoff for a VERY long time. The NCAA basketball tournament is under the auspices of the NCAA itself, which is why there is a tournament, a playoff. The football bowl games are under the control of other entities where money rules the day, because those games are businesses and have to consider business effects of who gets placed where.
The idea that one needs a consensus to be right is amusing, Neroon. As Kor would say, "You've been associating with this democratic rabble for far too long."
If you listened to Herbstreidt argue for Texas, all he could say was, "But they beat them on a neutral field," and that he felt that should be the deciding criterion. Nearly every other argument raised pointed out that such was pretty much all UT had going for it—that it paled in comparison to body of work. But like a dog with a chew toy, Kirk stayed with, "But they beat them." That argument's already been discredited in the face of other, stronger evidence that requires looking past the surface of the simplistic "A beat B, therefore A is better than B."
People decided that head-to-head should decide such things because it makes everything less messy, not because it makes more sense on a deeper level. Extreme example: If in 2011 11-1 Rutgers loses to Penn State in Happy Valley 40-38 in quadruple overtime, while 11-1 Penn State loses at home to Division 1-AA, 8-4 Delaware, 38-13, Rutgers is better than Penn State if both played approximately equivalent schedules (even though the Lions won their encounter), based on body of work, and on the fact that RU lost on the road to an excellent PSU team, while the Nittany Lions lost at home to a midge school.
This wouldn't even be an argument if Texas had beaten someone other than OU, and their schedules remained relatively difficult in comparison to each other. It's clouded by the fact that head-to-head is given inordinate weight in these discussions.
If that's "one of the strongest points," you got nothin'.
Granted, it would certainly settle the Big 12 question, via the conference's first criteria for tiebreakers—head-to-head. I'd have no problem with that.
On the other hand (and much more importantly as relates to this discussion), it would greatly strengthen Oklahoma's argument as relates to the BCS standings, in that Tech's win over Texas would be that of a two-loss team that was blown out at Oklahoma and couldn't get past a pathetic Baylor squad.
Never said they weren't. Said that, under scrutiny, Oklahoma wins the argument, and stand firmly by it. Sorry, but ... I've seen nothing here to refute or even substantially shake that.
Speak for yourself.
I watch a host of games every week, and don't talk to a host of people personally involved, which gives me an objectivity those guys lack.
Agreed.
Whatever your opinions of the BCS system, it's designed to get a #1 vs #2 bowl game, not determine a conference divisional title. I just don't think it should be used as a tiebreaker. There are better ways of settling three-way ties, using criteria that allows it to be settled on the field.
A consensus that draws from people of expertise increases the likelihood of being right. It doesn't guarantee it, but it does improve the chances.The idea that one needs a consensus to be right is amusing, Neroon. As Kor would say, "You've been associating with this democratic rabble for far too long."
Head-to-head has the biggest advantage because it is the only factor that eliminates virtually every other possible variable. It does make more sense because the two teams in question are trying to determine which is better than the other. What better criterion can you have than actual head-to-head competition? Everything else introduces some element of doubt, because there are other potential factors that cloud the issue. Now that can be mitigated, if for example the winner of the head-to-head loses other games significantly and to lesser competition.
Head-to-head is "inordinate" to you because it defeats your position.
Please note that I am NOT ignoring the body of work criterion. I have actually included it many times prior. However, there are areas in which Texas has done better than Oklahoma, as well as vice versa. And you have ........ ?If that's "one of the strongest points," you got nothin'.
At which point there is nothing left to discuss unless you introduce the possibility of the Big 12 changing their tie-breaking structure.
Which is a good point and the best one you've made so far.
And whom did I pick? Pssst... Oklahoma.
The difference is that I am allowing for it to be a much tougher decision than you have.
Speak for yourself.
"Sorry, but ... I've seen nothing here to refute or even substantially shake that."
"Body of work" - which seems to be your main criterion for taking Oklahoma in such convincing fashion - is rather less objective than head-to-head, isn't it?I watch a host of games every week, and don't talk to a host of people personally involved, which gives me an objectivity those guys lack.
The names I cited, as well as several others, are not some folks just sitting at home with their satellite TV and watching a few games. That's not meant to imply that you do. You're much more involved than that, it would seem. Instead the ones I allude to make it a career to gather information and process it for a larger percentage of the year. They draw on quite a few resources beyond televised games, simply because it's their job to do so. And I suspect they attend quite a few more games in person. For us, it's just a hobby at most. That's not to say the folks in here are completely unqualified. Just that the professionals are for the most part far more qualified, so what they say tends to carry more weight. And an awful lot feel that Texas should be the choice. A great many think Oklahoma, too.
Bottom line: who should be the Big-12 South rep is just not so clear-cut as you are making it out to be.
