Ohio St. Prez says TCU, Boise don't belong

[1B4IDie]

And how exactly would that work? In order to arrive at a "fairer" outcome thru playoffs, how many teams would be in them? 64, like basketball? The top 25? 10? And how is the top 10, or 25 determined to begin with? And how many playoff rounds have to be played to arrive at "the best?" Can it be done in less than 3, 4, or even 5 weeks?

 

A playoff system would be no more fair than the current polls. Leave it the way it is.

 

Oh, and Boise State this year would beat Ohio State 9 out of 10 times.

 

It would work like this:

Its amazing that a playoff of system is too complicated for our Universities to devise and you wonder why America's education system is failing.

 

Here is an idea:

 

#1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3 in the first week of Bowl Season.

Then the winner of those two games plays in the National Championship game.

 

You rotate the actual BCS Bowls that the playoff games and National Championship game is played in, like they do today.

 

Thats 3 BCS bowls.

 

The Other 2 Bowls could still be be determined by these selection criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series#Selection_of_teams

 

That way all the big Money Sponsors are happy and you can have a National Champion determined on the field of play.

 

There really hasn't been a team ranked #5 that has had a legitimate gripe or claim at the national championship, there has very rarely been a #4 team that had a legitimate claim either.

 

The only "drawback" is that 2 teams get 2 big time, big money bowl games, but to the winners go the spoils.

 

Wow that was really difficult to figure out.

 

Too bad College Football is not an amateur sport and there is too much money at stake to enact this simple plan.

 

And it would be more fair.

[Mr. WEO]

Alabama's Schedule San Jose, Duke, GA St. (3 lower teams)

 

Arkansas Schedule Tenn Tech, LA Mon, UTEP (3 lower teams)

 

South Carolina So Miss, Furman, Troy (3 lower teams)

 

Auburn Schedule Ark St, LA Mon, Chattanooga (3 lower teams)

 

LSU McNeese St, LA Mon (2 lower teams)

 

Need further proof?

 

Boise hasnt even played 3 GOOD teams...

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Just for giggles, I checked on a Non-SEC team:

 

Ohio State Marshall, Ohio, Eastern Mich (3 lower teams)

 

And Id argue that Marshall would kill most of the teams Boise plays as well.

You assume every other team that these guys play in their conference is a tougher game because some of those teams used to be good.

 

 

For example, look at Auburn--in addition the 3 "lower teams" you listed, you somehow left out Kentucky (sucks) and Ol'Miss (absolutely sucks).

[DrDawkinstein]

What??? Auburn played then #6 LSU and Alabama played then #7 Florida... THAT'S IT for top 10 teams between them this year...

 

See the Alabama schedule I linked above. Their schedule has 4 teams that were ranked in the top 10.

 

You're right that Auburn only played 1 "Top 10" School, but it also has games against #12 SC, #12 Arkansas, and #11 Alabama. All of those teams were once in the Top 10, and are still pretty close today.

 

Ultimate point here, that can not be proven false, EVERY school in the SEC West plays an exponentially harder, and more credible schedule than Boise.

 

You assume every other team that these guys play in their conference is a tougher game because some of those teams used to be good.

 

 

For example, look at Auburn--in addition the 3 "lower teams" you listed, you somehow left out Kentucky (sucks) and Ol'Miss (absolutely sucks).

 

Every SEC rival game is a tough game. Just like divisional rivals in the NFL. and Ole Miss does NOT absolutely suck. They put on a tough showing against LSU last week, and are STILL 10x the teams that Boise plays.

 

As I stated earlier, Boise doesnt need to set up a schedule against Alabama, USC, and Ohio St every year. But if they played even the mid/lower teams from some major conferences, we could at least compare them to the other teams.

 

Let Boise play Ole Miss, for example. If they go in and kill them, then we can say "Boise beat Ole Miss by 20, while LSU struggled with them at times", or at least have some sort of comparison discussion.

[bartshan-83]

Really? The Ohio St. President is the one making this argument??

 

Let's examine his comments:

"Well, I don't know enough about the Xs and Os of college football,"

Agreed. Great way to start your argument.

 

"I do know, having been both a Southeastern Conference president and a Big Ten president, that it's like murderer's row every week for these schools. We do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor. We play very fine schools on any given day.

You played Marshall, Eastern Michigan and Ohio. Are these all fine schools? Boise St. played Toledo this year...YOU played them last year!

 

Strength of Schedule

OSU: 59

BSU: 73

 

Remaining Opponents (Sagarin Rankings):

OSU: Michigan (41)

BSU: Nevada (24), Utah St. (115)

 

2010 Opponents Ranked in Sagarin Top 25 (as of today):

OSU: Wisconsin (14), Iowa (21)

BSU: Virginia Tech (18), Oregon St. (22), Nevada (24)

2010 Opponents Ranked in BCS Top 25 (as of today):

OSU: Wisconsin (7), Iowa (24)

BSU: Virginia Tech (16), Nevada (19)

 

 

Oh yeah...world of difference between the schedules. Night and day for sure. Murder's row my ass...

[Mr. WEO]

See the Alabama schedule I linked above. Their schedule has 4 teams that were ranked in the top 10.

 

You're right that Auburn only played 1 "Top 10" School, but it also has games against #12 SC, #12 Arkansas, and #11 Alabama. All of those teams were once in the Top 10, and are still pretty close today.

 

Ultimate point here, that can not be proven false, EVERY school in the SEC West plays an exponentially harder, and more credible schedule than Boise.

 

 

 

Every SEC rival game is a tough game. Just like divisional rivals in the NFL. and Ole Miss does NOT absolutely suck. They put on a tough showing against LSU last week, and are STILL 10x the teams that Boise plays.

 

As I stated earlier, Boise doesnt need to set up a schedule against Alabama, USC, and Ohio St every year. But if they played even the mid/lower teams from some major conferences, we could at least compare them to the other teams.

 

Let Boise play Ole Miss, for example. If they go in and kill them, then we can say "Boise beat Ole Miss by 20, while LSU struggled with them at times", or at least have some sort of comparison discussion.

 

No, every SEC rival game is not a tough one. Look, Ol' miss is being abused by the SEC. They also lost to Tenny. They lost to Jacksonville state.

 

Anyway, everyone understands that the SEC has the top teams in the country at its top. That doesn't make the SEC bottom dwellers better just because they live in a better div.

 

Besides, why is it that in college basketball no one, not even the President of The Ohio State University, has any problem with "lesser teams" making it to the "playoffs"---or even to the Final Four. Why should it be diferent for football? There is no logical reason (other than Bowl Money).

[McD]

See the Alabama schedule I linked above. Their schedule has 4 teams that were ranked in the top 10.

 

You're right that Auburn only played 1 "Top 10" School, but it also has games against #12 SC, #12 Arkansas, and #11 Alabama. All of those teams were once in the Top 10, and are still pretty close today.

 

Ultimate point here, that can not be proven false, EVERY school in the SEC West plays an exponentially harder, and more credible schedule than Boise.

 

 

 

Every SEC rival game is a tough game. Just like divisional rivals in the NFL. and Ole Miss does NOT absolutely suck. They put on a tough showing against LSU last week, and are STILL 10x the teams that Boise plays.

 

As I stated earlier, Boise doesnt need to set up a schedule against Alabama, USC, and Ohio St every year. But if they played even the mid/lower teams from some major conferences, we could at least compare them to the other teams.

 

Let Boise play Ole Miss, for example. If they go in and kill them, then we can say "Boise beat Ole Miss by 20, while LSU struggled with them at times", or at least have some sort of comparison discussion.

 

EVERY conference rival game can be viewed as a tough game in any conference. I know the point you're trying to make, but a conference rival is always a tough game. As for your theory on Alabama... check this link, it shows some top 25 teams, but not top 10... http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide

 

I'd like to see some common opponents as well, but since we dont have that you still cant disprove Boise St's ranking anymore than I can prove it. Again, let's find a way to get these teams head to head... but, wait... we can't because those who think they know more than us (really it's about power and $$) have control of that.

 

We do know this... Boise got a shot to play Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta, and WON. To me this school has proven it can play with the big boys, and the big boys know it. So... can they do it all the time on a consistent level? I guess we have to hope they get in to a big conference to prove it. Until then, the little big guy has to wait in the wings...

 

Funny we're talking about comparing a Boise St team (est 1968) to the likes of OK (est 1895) and/or Auburn/Alabama (both est 1892), etc. Those schools have been around forever with a TON of alumni and recruiting "tactics", and lets not forget how much talent WON'T go to Boise St because... well it's in Idaho!

[yungmack]

It would work like this:

 

 

And it would be more fair.

So only the fictitious top 4 teams would get to play for the fictitious National Championship? What about the next 6 teams? Or the next 16? Keeping in mind that, give or take a better performance or another win by a Big Ten or SEC team this very year, it's likely that the Non-Q teams such as TCU or Boise State would not be in the top 4. And if they weren't, would fans be satisfied that the final victor in this scenario really was the best team? I sure wouldn't.

 

When you boil it down, all this proposal amounts to is adding another bowl game so that the colleges and the TV networks can make even more money. People would still be arguing that the best team was one that didn't get to play. Which, by the way, is what we have already. And it's fun.

[dollars 2 donuts]

HA! No, Im not "blaming" Boise St, but simply debunking the myth that teams "refuse to return their phone calls". Plenty of big teams have been willing to deal with them. I wont deny that, as Sisyphean mentioned, the big schools arent enthused or motivated to play them as they have more to lose, but those same big schools play plenty of ranked, tough competition. It's not like the Big Schools are playing 10 bad teams, as Boise is. The Big Schools already prove themselves every year.

 

As we've said in the thread, if Boise is serious about it's football program, change Conferences. It's about all they can do.

 

I hear ya, Doc, but honestly, why should other conferences be watered down just to make the BCS's feel good about themselves?

 

Case in point being Boise's conference.

 

For example, what if if Akron ripped off three straight 11 win seasons causing other MAC teams to slowly creep up their talent as well. Why should the result of a entire conference gradually pulling itself up via one team's success mean that team should go, "Wow, we are really good, we should get the hell out of this conference."?

 

DD, what would the Atlantic 10 Conference in basketball look like if that were the case?

[FightClub]

Regardless of any ulterior or self-serving motives, the guy is right.

 

If, for example, Alabama beats Auburn on Friday, how can you say Boise St deserves to be in the Championship over a 1-loss SEC Champion who has had to play MULTIPLE top-10 ranked teams?

 

 

Gee, that's easy. The other team lost and TCU (or Boise St) hasn't. I mean, really, how many years in a row are you going to watch them put these 1 loss teams in there without realizing it's stupid. You play the schedule that you have, and if you win them all, you go to the final. How is that so hard? It's only a discussion if only 1 team goes undefeated, or if three do. Then you have to figure out who goes based on nuance. But if two teams go undefeated, schedule irregardless, they play in the final. It's great, because there's no need to look at the nuance.

 

Would you want such a system in the NFL? How would you feel about ESPN and the NFL anointing the 1 loss Patriots to play in the Super Bowl over the undefeated Bills against, say, the undefeated Cowboys because of some perceived idea that the Patriots had a harder road to their 1 loss record than the Bills to their undefeated record? Sounds stupid, right?

 

People make this stuff so hard. If there are 2 teams undefeated, they clearly should play each other for the National Championship.

[1B4IDie]

So only the fictitious top 4 teams would get to play for the fictitious National Championship? What about the next 6 teams? Or the next 16? Keeping in mind that, give or take a better performance or another win by a Big Ten or SEC team this very year, it's likely that the Non-Q teams such as TCU or Boise State would not be in the top 4. And if they weren't, would fans be satisfied that the final victor in this scenario really was the best team? I sure wouldn't.

 

When you boil it down, all this proposal amounts to is adding another bowl game so that the colleges and the TV networks can make even more money. People would still be arguing that the best team was one that didn't get to play. Which, by the way, is what we have already. And it's fun.

Your reading comprehension is lacking youngster.

 

1. There is no additional bowl game.

2. If Auburn, Oregon, TCU and Boise St. all win out. Then 2 non-Qs would be in.

 

In this system #2 Auburn vs #3TCU in the first game

and #1Oregon vs #4TCU in the second game.

 

It seems like the only person that gives a **** what the #5-9 school's think is a fictional idiot that would fictionally complain about anything.

 

Not to mention you would have to have something wrong with you to feel that the winner of this system is not a deserved national champion or Argue that the #5 team should would the national championship.

 

LSU is the #5 team and I didn't see or hear anyone complaining that they should be in the National Championship game today.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Why So Serious?

[boyst]

Again, considering the 2011 opener is already scheduled against Georgia (of the SEC), I call BS on this as more self-serving speak from an AD, just like the guy from OSU.

 

Its all politicking for those rankings. Now we see that both sides are doing it.

That is all it is and he's doing quite well at it.

 

The BCS club will do anything possible to keep BSU out of their little party. If you aren't SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, Texas, Nebraska or Oklahoma, you aren't invited no matter how long you go undefeated.

The MAC gets in often. If Boise State played in the MAC teams would rival them well. UT, NIU, Miami, BGSU, OU would all compete with them. Toledo lost to both OSU and BSU this year but there have been times where these teams compete. Toledo beat Penn State and Purdue several years ago right after Chester Taylor left when Gradkowski was there. BGSU has beat Michigan. People who play football know what it is like to play a pretender team. When you are BSU and you're playing Univ. Phoenix Online this week you do not have to work on specific game plans just fundementals. That is a big thing. Do you think UM is gearing up for Pryor and the Buckeyes schemes or are they doing the fundementals, the bird dogs and practicing route running?

 

The Big Schools will play 5 bad teams a year, minimum.

You're forgetting that when you're in a conference like the SEC you still have to play the weak teams, like Tennessee. And if the big schools didn't play the small schools those small schools would have amazing records and wonder why no one played them. Univ of Toledo was paid a lot of money to go to Cbus which really helps out the school. There is too much wishy washy here. Ball State played Iowa and lost 45-0. Marshall played WV and OSU and remember a few years ago when they'd whine about being in the MAC and want in the big leagues? They moved up from the MAC and are struggling. Just 10 years ago they were a D2 school. They make it a point to play the big schools and for that I give them credit.

 

 

The bottom line is that Boise State and TCU do not have to face the same challenges day in and day out. They do get the big wins, but lets just let these speak for themselves

 

2002: no ranked opponents 12-1, lost to Arkansas = finsihed #15

2003: no ranked opponents 12-1, lost to Oregon State = finished 16

2004: no ranked opponents 11-1, lost to Louisville in bowl game = finished unranked

2005: no ranked opponents 9-4, lost to Oregon State, Georgia, Fresno State, and Boston College (in bowl game) = finished unranked and still beat Idaho 70-35

2006: beat #11 Oklahoma in bowl game, 13-0 = finsihed #5

2007: 1 ranked opponent (#19 Hawaii), 10-3, lost to Hawaii, Eastern Carolina, Washington = finished unranked

2008: 2 ranked opponents (#11 TCU, #17 Oregon), 12-1, lost to TCU in bowl game = finished 13th

2009: 2 ranked opponents (#16 Oregon and #4 TCU), 13-0 = finsihed #4

*2010: 1 ranked opponent (#10 VT), 10-0, ranked 4th

 

draw your own conclusions.

*to date

[NyQuil]

"They didn't face a difficult enough schedule" to play for the BCS championship....syas the guy who's team faced E. Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Purdue, Marshall....

 

Guess he wants to preserve his team's opportunity to get blown out in another BCS champ game.

 

The bigger joke is Notre Dame getting to play in a BCS bowl if they are ranked. They played 9 home games and only 3 road games this season. Good thing they suck.

[sleaky72]

Sorry but the arguments for Boise State and TCU are comical at best.

 

The Mountain West and WAC are an absolute joke.

 

The wear and tear, mentally and physically in the SEC, Big 10 and PAC-10 are nothing compared to the romp of playing the likes of Fresno State and Hawaii weekly

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Here's the problem with the "strength of schedule" argument. It's partly based on rep. Everyone assumes the SEC is a great conference but they won't play any legit OOC opponents, or anyone on the road, so they never have to prove they are better than everyone else. (What happened to Alabama in 2008 when the played Utah?) It's a closed feedback loop. Everyone assumes you're great but you never have to prove it.

 

PTR

 

So you mean SEC teams' combined BCS bowl record of 14-5 (.737) isn't enough "proof"? Just to show you exactly how DOMINATING the SEC is:

 

BCS bowl records for major conferences:

 

Big 10: 10-11 (.476)

Pac 10: 8-5 (.615) (five of the Pac 10's combined wins are from USC...)

Big 12: 7-10 (.438)

Big East: 6-6 (.500)

ACC: 2-10 (.167)

 

Note: SEC teams don't play other SEC teams in BCS bowl games. They play the best teams out of the other conferences.

 

 

So with more BCS bowl wins, fewer BCS bowl losses, and obviously a much higher winning percentage than any other conference in division 1 football, I'm not really sure what more "proof" you need. Maybe you need to let go of your bias (lemme guess: you are an alumnus of a big 10 school, amiright?) and just accept the plain and simple and undeniable fact that the SEC is far superior to any other conference in terms of competitiveness.

Edited November 25, 2010 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

[The Senator]

At least one college coach has been advocating a 64-team playoff for a couple of years now...

 

Mike Leach Pushes for 'Mainstream' 64-Team College Football Playoff

 

Mike Leach's Playoff Will Change World

 

 

(FF to 2:40 mark for playoff discussion)

[boyst]

At least one college coach has been advocating a 64-team playoff for a couple of years now...

Aww, the bromance between you two is so cute!

 

At first 64 teams idea was a shocker at first, but maybe it can be worked out. Any playoffs is good enoguh!

[billsfan89]

Problem is these bigger schools don't want to play Boise and TCU. Boise and TCU reach out to play other schools from the "better" BCS divisions but they decline them wanting to play cupcakes instead. It is beyond me why college football 1- Doesn't have a playoff and 2- Lets the schools create their own schedules (I understand letting them have some sort of say but there needs to be a 3rd party that ultimately decides their schedules).

[boyst]

Problem is these bigger schools don't want to play Boise and TCU. Boise and TCU reach out to play other schools from the "better" BCS divisions but they decline them wanting to play cupcakes instead. It is beyond me why college football 1- Doesn't have a playoff and 2- Lets the schools create their own schedules (I understand letting them have some sort of say but there needs to be a 3rd party that ultimately decides their schedules).

reread this entire thread. missed a lot of excellent points and issues.

[The Senator]

Aww, the bromance between you two is so cute!

 

At first 64 teams idea was a shocker at first, but maybe it can be worked out. Any playoffs is good enoguh!

Yet when you listen to Leach explain it and/or read his reasoning/comments/ideas about a 64-team system, it begins to seem very logical, no?

 

(Just what you'd expect from the brilliant analytical mind of that football genius/lawyer!!! )

[Buckeye Eric]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5845736

 

 

"They didn't face a difficult enough schedule" to play for the BCS championship....syas the guy who's team faced E. Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Purdue, Marshall....

 

Guess he wants to preserve his team's opportunity to get blown out in another BCS champ game.

 

And Auburn has played louisianna- Monroe and Chattanooga. They all play a couple cake teams and is impossible to predict when teams like Purdue or Minn will have off years.

 

The problem is that when teams are slotted high in the initial polls they never drop, no matter what the schedules. If Boise and TCU were slotted 15ish, they certainly would not be in the polls where they are now.

 

One solution is to not have any pre-season polls and have the first one at week 5 so the order is based on what happens on the field rather than what is anticipated to happen.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Buckeye Eric