|
|
|
|
#1
08-26-1999, 07:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah, it's about that time. This Saturday, the 1999 college football season starts. Being in Nebraska, college football is almost our state religion.
Invariably, there also comes the debate of polls vs playoffs. I was wondering what you sports fans thought about this annual debate. Myself, I don't think a playoff is the answer. The most common format I've heard is to use the bowls as playoff games. For example: round one would be the Aloha Bowl, round two would be the Sun Bowl, championship in the Rose Bowl. My problem is where are you going to find the fans that can afford to go to Honolulu, El Paso, and Pasadena (in my example) in three successive weeks? Airfare, tickets, and hotel packages would be enormously expensive. Plus, bowl locales like Miami, New Orleans, and San Diego aren't known for budget accomodations. The answers I've heard most are "real fans will do what it takes" or "it works in basketball". Except basketball arenas don't seat 70,000+ people. Personally, I think the BCS system (albeit imperfect) we have now may be the best bet for getting 1 & 2 together. Most of the championship debates in the past dealt with teams that couldn't play each other due to bowl obligations within their conferences. Now that has been corrected. ------------------ "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
08-26-1999, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah...football. I love fall. (And to get in a plug - Go Penn State!) On to the BCS.
I agree that we need a playoff of some sort - the prime case for it being the year both Nebraska and Penn State went 12-0. However, I'm not a big fan of the current BCS. It takes so much information (and they added MORE polls this year), no one can tell who's best. And what if three teams end up undefeated at the end of the regular season? My suggestion - take the top 8 teams from the AP poll and have a playoff at the end of the year. Use the bowls they're using for the BCS games. And now, off to figure out my fantasy football team....
|
|
#3
08-26-1999, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The polls are such a crock.
How in the world can a team get a high ranking before a single game is played? College football should follow the lead of college basketball, and have regional championships, participants determined by season record, followed by a "Final Four" type national championship. And can the polls entirely. ------------------ Chaim Mattis Keller ckeller@schicktech.com "Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks." -- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
|
|
#4
08-26-1999, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A playoff system is absolutely imposible. The kids only play 12 games or so a year, its not like they can then play 4 more in a play ff system. They'd miss too much school, and the injuries would go way up in this extended season.
Also college fans aren't going to travel far on consecutive weeks. Basketball you have 16 teams in each arena playing in the first two rounds to fill up a much smaller venue, in the next rounds you have 4 teams, and they play two rounds in the same weekend. You can't play a football game in less than a week. With a 114 teams you simply need to use the ranking/poll system. This system isn't perfect, but I think more polls is better. Nebraska never deserved to be #1 in their heyday, they didn't play much tough competition on a regular basis. Sure they can get up for two tough games a year, but put them in a Big Ten schedule playing the likes of OSU, Michigan, PSU, Wisconsin, Purdue, and the one other team that has a great year, next add in a tough non-conference schedule inclding Miami, Arizona and Notre Dame week in and week out, and they are never better than 10-2. The more complicated BCS rankings even out the biased polls, and give the teams that statistically prove they are better against stronger competition the advantage. The one necessary addition to the system is keeping the traditional locations for bowl games. If a Big Ten or Pac 10 team are in the top spot the championship game must be in the Rose bowl. Too many fans have standing reservations in Pasedena for any Team who makes it, if the Big Ten is there they need to see the the best team. Same goes for the Big East and the Orange Bowl, and the Big 12 and the Sugar Bowl. I personally liked having three teams all with a shot at the championship playing n three different games, it made for some exciting football, and suspense. With the BCS there is really only one exciting game in the bowls, that sucks. I admit it may be necessary to eliminate the ties and contraversy, but there was a upside to the old system.
|
|
#5
08-26-1999, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And the polls are of course heavilly biased towards the "Big 6" conferences (Big 10, ACC, SEC, Beast, Pac 10, Big 12) and Notre Dame, and largely ignore the rest of Div I-A (WAC, Mountain West, MAC, Big West, C-USA and various other "independant" teams) to the point where these conferences have been called "I-A and a half." Under the modern polling system, no national champion has ever been culled from these conferences, and it is rare, especially in the case of the MAC and the Big West, for any of these teams to make the rankings. It's a "catch-22" If you don't have a strong schedule, you don't make the poll; and if you don't make the poll good teams won't play you. Under earlier versions of the BCS (Bowl Alliance, etc.) and I believe also under the current one, only the Big 6 conferences have a realistic shot at the title. WAC and Mountain West teams have an outside shot, while MAC and Big West teams might as well not even be IN division I-A.
So what is the solution for a national chamiponship: Let there BE no national championship beyond the polls. The BCS is no more fair than the pre-1991 system was, since it depends on polls to say who #1 and #2 are. It adds nothing to the old system, and only serves to bar from contention further the 1/2 of the Div I-A schools that still have no chance. Even if North Texas University went undefeated for the next 5 years (not likely, but possible) it would never warrant a post in the BCS or a #1 poll ranking, since even DESPITE this record, "Big 6" teams would by-and-large still refuse to play them. In a season that is AT MOST 13 games long, and in which we must give bowls their due, we should content ourselves with, under that kind of restriction, only crowning conference champions and bowl victors, with a nod to the poll #1s also. I am not saying that division I-A needs a playoff system like Div I-AA, Div II and Div III all have, but if we want to crown a truely non-controversial national champ, our only recourse is to abolish the bowls and go to a 16 team tourney, with 11 conference champs and 5 at-large bids. If you want to keep the bowls and make them meaningful, then you are stuck with no true "champion." In this situation more than any other, you really cannot have your cake and eat it too. ------------------ Jason R Remy "No amount of legislation can solve America's problems." -- Jimmy Carter (1980)
|
|
#6
08-26-1999, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Polls? God, I hate the current system... They can all suck my poll!
All of the arguments against a playoff ring hollow. The current system is a joke - the loser of Penn State against Arizona the first week of the season is pretty much out of the picture for the national Championship, and that is fucked up. ------------------ Brian O'Neill CMC International Records rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html ICQ 35294890 AIM Scrabble1 Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill
|
|
#7
08-26-1999, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, jason, BYU was crowned national champion by both polls in 1984. In modern history no non-Big 6 team has won a national championship because no non-Big 6 team has deserved to win a national championship. Personally, I'd kind of like to see Division 1A football get rid of some of the dead weight. A reorganization of some of the minor conferences (this includes the Big Least) would be a welcome change. And getting rid of the chronically worst teams (Temple, N. Ill, Big West among others) in Div 1A would fix some of the problem.
The current system of polls and BCS is a load of crap. The only way to settle it is to have a playoff. Div 1AA already has a playoff, so stop telling us that there's no way the kids can handle it. 8 teams is enough to start with, but 16 would be ideal. TheDude
|
|
#8
08-26-1999, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good point, Satan. Also remember that a team can WIN in a given week, and if they didn't win by "enough," they go down in the polls. Example: Michigan plays Schlomo State. Michigan wins, but it's not a blowout. They'll probably go DOWN in the polls. What a crock.
|
|
#9
08-26-1999, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A playoff system which would allow access equally to all conferences. The at-large bids could even be weighted to previous years conference stregth; if the MAC champ makes the finals, then the 2nd and 3rd place MAC teams get greater consideration for future atlarge berths. If the Big West continually loses in teh first round, the decrease their chance of sending a second team. But at least it would allow for greater access to hertofore maligned conferences Or, you could further subdivide division I into 3 divisions: I-A, I-B, and I-C (I still think that A, AA, and AAA are silly, but the designations are ultimately moot). The top 6 division I divisions based on recent bowl game performance are allowed in I-A, the next 7 or so in I-B, and the rest in I-C. Indepentant teams can lobby for consideration based on other factors as well. Every 5 years or so you have a review of conference strength. The worst conference in each division gets relegated, while the best in each division gets promoted. Team schedules are approved by the NCAA such that there are a minimum of 4 non-conference games in the regular season, and across the 5 year span, a teams non-conference matchups should be evenly spread across all of the conferences in a division. Non-conference matchups are based on previous year's performance. Thus, in theory every division I school (even I-C) would have a shot at making the national chamipionship over time. ------------------ Jason R Remy "No amount of legislation can solve America's problems." -- Jimmy Carter (1980)
|
|
#10
08-26-1999, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm all for thinning out the herd a bit. One problem is the elitist attitude the remaining teams would develop.
Heres a concept. Create a new Division. You'd have Div I-A, Div I-B (or AA if you'd like)...I'm gonna quit now becaus eI checked back and jayron basicaly proposed my exact idea. Great minds...
|
|
#11
08-26-1999, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To elaborate on the system a bit. I think that certain I-A teams must be given permanent legacy status. I mean most of the Big Ten (yes even Illinois and Northwestern), Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Nebraska, the strong ACC and SEC teams. These teams make college football what it is. Many teams however should need to earn their D I-A status. If the thinned out D I-A, minus the Wyomings, Northern Ills, Temples, UABs, and Hawaiis, had a system where they needed to maintain a 25% winning percentage over a 4 year span or something. If they fell below that mark they were demoted to D I-AA (or B), and then vice versa they needed to achive a 75% winning percentage over 2 years (for demoted teams) or 4 years (for new entries) to be moved into the D I-A. Use this system all the way down the line so that even the Prarie Bluff's have a shot at D I-A someday. To give the lower teams an opportunity pass a rule that requires every D I-A team must play one or two D I-AA teams each year.
Using this system you could lower the number of conferences, get rid of the MEAC, and the Big West etc. Move the quality teams to the remaining conferences and raise the Big 12 to a higher level. This makes a plyoff system a bit more realistic in that you don't have the MEAC champ stealing a spot from the third place Big Ten team (who is likely ranked in the top ten). The main trick is maintaining the rivalries and regional conflicts. As long as the bowls are used to possibly determine the at large bids, and make some of the crappy bowls the conference title games. You could still have bowls that are important and exciting. What am i missing?
|
|
#12
08-26-1999, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hate the current poll system, but don't expect it to go away any time soon. You have to understand that, if a flawed system endures a long time, SOMEBODY must be benefitting from it. WHo?
Well... the great majority of college football coaches and college Athletic Directors like the current system waaay better than the idea of a playoff. Oh, they'll SWEAR to you it's because they worry about the toll a playoff would take on players' grades (yeah, we really believe THAT), but there's a more plausible reason: if there's a playoff system, only ONE team wins, and the coaches of ALL the other teams look like losers. Under the current system, DOZENS of coaches get to go to bowl games, and have a chance to end the season on a high note. Hey, if you're a coach in the 5th year of his contract, and your job is on the line, a victory in the Poulan Weedeater Bowl might be just what it takes to save your hide and your job for one more season! Now, the MAIN reason the polls are such a joke is this: even IF the coaches and sportswriters who vote are intelligent, honorable guys who make a real effort to cast good votes (and most of them probably are), these guys have NO IDEA whether last year's sophomores and redshirt freshmen are ready to step up and perform well this year! They don't REALLY know how strong Ohio State's defense will be without Andy Katzenmoyer! They don't REALLY know how the Texas offense will perform without Ricky WIlliams! They've never seen UCLA's new quarterback play, and have no idea whether or not he can carry Cade McNown's jock strap! So, when they cast their pre-season votes, what are they basing it on? Nothing much- just hunches, and past performance. Sportswriters play it very safe at this time of the year, and tend to vote for teams that are perennially. They think, "Well, Florida State is a strong program year in and year out, so... what the hell, vote for Florida State as #1 And Penn State is always good... Penn State #2 Let's see... well, Nebraska is due for a comeback, let's make Nebraska #3..." It's guesswork, folks, nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I don't think championships should EVER come down to ANYONE's opinion (including mine). But even if you LIKE the idea of polls, at LEAST postpone voting until week 5 or 6, when we've had a chance to SEE teams play! Another thing that makes the polls a joke is this: SUPPOSE voters assume that Florida State and Ohio State are a powerhouse and rate them #1 and #2 at the start of the season. Then, suppose they ASSUME TCU is weak, and rank TCU #50. Over the course of the season, Florida State and Ohio State go undefeated, but so does TCU. At the end of the season, Fla. St. and Ohio St. will STILL be ranked #1 and #2, and face off in the championship game, while TCU will barely have worked its way into the top ten! In other words, the championship game is a self-fulfilling prophecy! Fla. State and Ohio State are playing for the championship BECAUSE the sportswriters BELIEVED they would, before they had any intelligent reason to! Meanwhile, TCU is out of the hunt BECAUSE the reporters were wrong about their abilities all along!
|
|
#13
08-26-1999, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The MAC (Mid-American Conference) is a Div I-A conference that covers an area roughly analagous to the Big-10 (midwestern schools). Tradition MAC schools are Bowling Green, Ball State, Ohio University, Miami University of Ohio, Toledo. Recent additions include Marshall, Buffalo, and Northern Illinois. Not to be picky, of course... ------------------ Jason R Remy "No amount of legislation can solve America's problems." -- Jimmy Carter (1980)
|
|
#14
08-27-1999, 12:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, I am still in March Madness mode, and the MEAC seemed like an obsure conference. I stand corrected.
|
|
#15
08-27-1999, 08:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Omni asks "What am I missing?"
Well, scheduling, for one thing. Schools schedule their games 4-6 years ahead of time. If you "promote" a school to I-A, it will be, even with schedule shuffling, 2-4 years before they play a true I-A schedule. Since the NCAA requires 6 (has it been raised to 7?) victories against I-A opponents to qualify for bowl consideration, the promoted school would be out of the picture for the first 2-4 years. Conversely, demoting a I-A team will screw the schedule of their opponents who remain I-A, possibly costing them bowl consideration. Sounds like a lot of unhappy coaches, players, alumni, and fans. ------------------ The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik
|
|
#16
08-29-1999, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ability of a given sports team to beat an opposing team once (as in a playoff) means very little. Only in baseball, where teams play each other several times before advancing to the next stage in the tournament, does a playoff tend to mean what folks think it means. If Florida State loses 13-10 to Penn State in the Sugar Bowl after each has gone 11-0, so what? That's one out of one. They could rematch the following Monday and Florida State might come back with a 21-14 win.
In light of that, I'm opposed to a playoff system. It would end up like basketball and pro football, where the regular season is about as relevant as warmup antics and ONLY the championship tournament counts for anything. ------------------ Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
|
|
#17
08-29-1999, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Satan said:
[All of the arguments against a playoff ring hollow. The current system is a joke - the loser of Penn State against Arizona the first week of the season is pretty much out of the picture for the national Championship, and that is fucked up.] So a team that loses is more deserving of a National championship than a team that wins all of thier games? ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#18
08-29-1999, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Dude said:
[The current system of polls and BCS is a load of crap. The only way to settle it is to have a playoff. Div 1AA already has a playoff, so stop telling us that there's no way the kids can handle it. 8 teams is enough to start with, but 16 would be ideal.] But the Div1-AA playoffs are determined by polls as well. ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#19
08-29-1999, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Falcon said:
[Good point, Satan. Also remember that a team can WIN in a given week, and if they didn't win by "enough," they go down in the polls. Example: Michigan plays Schlomo State. Michigan wins, but it's not a blowout. They'll probably go DOWN in the polls. What a crock.] But also remember that with the BCS, it is an *AVERAGE* of the two major polls and several computer polls. While not winning by a large margin may affect your BCS numbers, it shouldn't be enough to drop you unless a more deserving team played better. ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#20
08-29-1999, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jayron 32 said:
[No one can be certain if La. Tech could beat Michigan and Nebraska and Penn State and Florida in any given year because they never have the opportunity to play any of these teams.] If you really believe that LaTech could have beaten any of the National Champions of the past decade, then I will have to request you admit yourself to the local asylum. Now it may be a shame that LaTech or Tulane play in a sub-par conference, but that doesn't mean that if they have a good season based on inferior opponents that they are ready to take on the big boys. ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#21
08-29-1999, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Omnicent said:
--I am not going to repeat this long description of a very complicated program-- Now which is more complicated? The BCS or a program like the one you suggested? ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#22
08-29-1999, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
However, lowrys -
If a team doesn't win by the "expected" margin, it will fall in almost ALL of the polls. As an example, Penn State beat Arizona this weekend 41-7. It was almost 41-14 when Arizona almost scored a meaningless touchdown with a few minutes left to go. Now, the pollsters would look at a 41-14 score a lot differently, even though both touchdowns were in the final minutes. Even with averaging the polls in the BCS formula, it would still hurt the better team. astorian - Great point on the polls. And your post is the main reason I *hate* the coaches poll. Florida State and Penn State could suck, and they'd still be ranked fairly high, because everyone loves Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno. As I said before, what a crock.
|
|
#23
08-30-1999, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lowrys, when did I say that, or propose a BCS system????
|
|
#24
08-30-1999, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Omniscient said:
[lowrys, when did I say that, or propose a BCS system????] You misunderstood what I was talking about. I was commenting on your system that you described. I didn't feel like quoting the whole thing. I just asked... Which is more complicated... the system you proposed, or the BCS? ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#25
08-30-1999, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Falcon said:
[It's happened. Penn State-Indiana, the year Penn State went 12-0. Which was...1995 or 1996, I think. They didn't pound Indiana into the ground, and lost the #1 ranking. Nebraska got it, and kept it throughout the rest of the season. (And IIRC, that debacle was one of the main calls for a BCS system.) ] I am guessing that would have to be 1995, as Florida won the NC in 96. But lets examine the situation. PennSt didn't "pound" Indiana (a decidedly poor team by anyone's standards), yet Nebraska performs better, plus they were the defending National Champions, and if I recall... Nebraska's most talented team was that year. I wouldn't doubt that Nebraska deserved the top spot over PennSt. Of course without knowing the full situation I couldn't offer anymore than that. Hubzilla is the Nebraska expert... I expect him to chime in anytime now about the situation. ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#26
08-30-1999, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lowrys -
Agreed. (And it'll be interesting to see Hubzilla's take.) However, that was the year Penn State had Ki-Jana Carter and Kerry Collins. And my point was that by winning a game, they went down in the rankings? Nebraska has NEVER had a tough schedule. (Which is because they're in the Big 12.) Personally, I would have loved to see the two teams meet each other. IMHO, Penn State would have won. (Of course, I have a slightly biased opinion.....)  And as a finall comment, I am *so* glad football's back. Yet another reason I love fall....
|
|
#27
08-30-1999, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lowrys,
The details of that season (1994, BTW) are quite sordid-allow me to explain. Penn State jumped to first place on the basis of having won some strong games (including beating Michigan in Ann Arbor). Penn State was leading Indiana by a comfortable margin early in the fourth quarter (I believe it was 21 points). Joe Paterno is a honorable coach (one of a very few in the game) and decided that he would not run up the score like some schools I could mention. As a result the second-team defense gave up two meaningless scores, the last of which was the final play of the game. This brought the score to a much slimmer margin (I think 7, but I'm not sure). The pollsters, most of whom had never seen one minute of the game, said, "Penn State only beat a bad team by only 7 points; they must not be that good" and dropped them to second, despite the fact that the average PSU scoring drive from that game lasted about 3 minutes and PSU could have easily scored again with their first-stringers. Nebraska, contrary to popular opinion, did not beat a good team that week, but they beat an average team by a lot. While it is true that a single playoff game may not be truly indicative of the relative ranking of two teams, at least the "national championship" was decided on the field rather than in the minds of the pollsters. May I remind you that the NFL uses a single elimination system for its playoffs and no one complains. Also, while the seedings for the 1-AA playoffs are determined by polls, at least all the top teams are represented and have a chance to win. You need to select the teams somehow, and no matter how you do it, some team is going to feel jilted for not having been selected. But with 8 teams instead of 2, your chances of having excluded the best team are much smaller. TheDude
|
|
#29
08-30-1999, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I recall the Penn State-Nebraska game. I won't claim that Penn State played brilliantly (it wasn't one of their stronger efforts), but they were leading 34-20 with a few seconds to go. In other words, the game was OVER. Penn State had the game in the bag. Indiana had played gamely, but they had ZERO chance to win. Regardles,, since the Hoosiers knew they had time for exactly one play, they figured, "What the heck? Let's throw a Hail Mary into the end zone." That's exactly what they did, and it worked. The Nittany Lions didn't rush the quarterback or play tight defense, since the outcome of the game was no longer in doubt. Indiana scored a touchdown. Since there was no time on the clock, they figured, "Hey what the heck, let's go for 2!" Again, since the game was over, and there was no way Indiana could win, Penn State pretty much let them score the 2. At that point, the gun sounded, at Penn State won 34-28.
To anyone who SAW the game, it was clear that Penn State had won handily. To people who only saw the score in the next days' newspaper, it apepared that Penn State had barely escaped with their lives. Now, I've always liked Penn State and I've always hated Nebraska... still, my HUNCH is that Nebraska was better that year. If I had a vote... I probably would have held my nose and voted for Nebraska. But why should a championship ever come down to anyone's OPINION??? Who CARES which team I think is better? Who CARES which team the coaches or reporters think is better? A championship should be earned on the field. A playoff is the only way to go... but I'm 38, and not at all convinced a playoff will happen in my lifetime. Maybe a playoff system wouldn't be perfect, but it would HAVE to be better than letting sportswriters GUESS who the best team is!
|
|
#30
08-31-1999, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Falcon said:
[If a team doesn't win by the "expected" margin, it will fall in almost ALL of the polls. As an example, Penn State beat Arizona this weekend 41-7. It was almost 41-14 when Arizona almost scored a meaningless touchdown with a few minutes left to go. Now, the pollsters would look at a 41-14 score a lot differently, even though both touchdowns were in the final minutes. Even with averaging the polls in the BCS formula, it would still hurt the better team.] Even under the old system of AP and coaches polls only, a score difference like that didn't make a difference. It would be an extremely rare occurance (and I can't think of one at all) for a team to lose a spot because they won by 41-14 instead of 41-7. Now I could defintely see a possibility of dropping if the score was 41-40 (but considering Arizona's rank, PennSt wouldn't drop at all even if they won 3-0.) As a general rule of thumb... teams don't drop due to poor performance. They are surpassed by better performers. And let's not kid ourselves... in the BCS, the only two spots that matter are #1 and #2, what happens at the #18 spot is insignificant. ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#31
08-31-1999, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lowrys -
Got to disagree with you. You said: Quote:
And I do agree that the only spots that matter for the BCS are #1 and #2. However, as astorian pointed out, the #1 and #2 spots are heavily influenced by the preseason polls, which are a joke. ------------------ "You have to laugh at yourself, because you'd cry your eyes out if you didn't." -Emily Saliers
|
|
#32
08-31-1999, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't want to turn this into a fan's debate, but Falcon asked for my take on the 1994 championship.
Hmm, what an intriguing debate. Actually, I was of the opinion that both teams should've shared. Paterno was a classy guy and I couldn't have imagined a better guy to share it with. Would it have taken away from our Natl Championship? I doubt it, after all, no one in Nebraska thinks of 1997 as a Co-Champions. I bet it's the same in Michigan. Interestingly enough, NU's coach, players, and fans wanted desperately to play Penn State in the bowl game. They thought it was unfair that we drew #3 Miami at their home stadium, while PSU had to get by Oregon. Ironically, we considered PSU on a neutral field an easier draw than Miami at home (before their downfall). If I recall, PSU beat Indiana the same weekend that NU played Colorado. NU had an inexperienced QB (starter was out with blood clots) and took on favored #3 Colorado with Salaam, Kordell, and Westbrook (which had beaten Michigan). NU won 24-7, and would've jumped to #1 regardless of what the PSU-IU score was. Much like when Michigan jumped ahead of unbeaten NU in 97 after beating PSU. As for Nebraska's "easy schedule", it should be noted that in 1995 #1 NU beat 4 teams that finished* in the top ten by an average of 49-18, including #2 Florida 62-24. In 1997, #1 NU beat more teams that ended up in the final rankings (5 vs 3) than Michigan's supposedly tougher slate. ------------------ "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo
|
|
#33
09-01-1999, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Falcon said:
[Agreed. (And it'll be interesting to see Hubzilla's take.) However, that was the year Penn State had Ki-Jana Carter and Kerry Collins. And my point was that by winning a game, they went down in the rankings?] I did say it was rare, but I think Nebraska was an overwhelmingly better team than PennSt. [Nebraska has NEVER had a tough schedule. (Which is because they're in the Big 12.) Personally, I would have loved to see the two teams meet each other. IMHO, Penn State would have won. (Of course, I have a slightly biased opinion.....)] Now... as far as the Big10 being a tougher conference than the BigXII... weeeell that's a matter of biased opinion too.  ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#34
09-01-1999, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lowrys,
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have to say that I think you are on crack when you say that Nebraska was an enormously more talented team than PSU. That team had one of the more incredible offenses in history that year and, while their defense was mediocre, it was good enough to win the big games. I think PSU-Nebraska that year would have been one of the all-time great college football match-ups and while I may be biased, I think Penn State would have pulled it out. As to the question of whether it is tougher to play in the Big 10 or Big 12, it is a matter of opinion. But I might point out that there is no question that the Big10 has been stronger in the last three years. And the Big 10 is always a more physical league which causes weariness and injuries. Which is also why it is so difficult to win every game. TheDude
|
|
#35
09-01-1999, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
TheDude wrote:
Quote:
To put 1994 PSU's 47 ppg in historical perspective, the 1995 Huskers averaged 49 ppg, the 1996 Florida Gators averaged 47 ppg, and the 1997 Huskers averaged 47. As shown below, the latter three teams played tougher schedules (based on ranked opponents, of course). Quote:
Year: Big 10, Big 8/12 teams ranked (top ten teams in parenthess) 1994: 3(1), 3(2) not incl 2 future Big XII teams 1995: 4(2), 4(4) not incl 3 future Big XII teams 1996: 4(2), 4(2) 1997: 4(1), 4(2)* 1998: 4(2), 4(1) Going by the AP, it appears both conferences are about even, even though in 1994-5, the Big 8 had 3 fewer teams. The Big 8/12 has an 11-8 edge in top ten teams, however. *This was the year Michigan was bragging how tough the Big 10 was compared the Big XII. You'll notice I picked the AP, which gave Michigan the top ranking. ------------------ "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo
|
|
#36
09-01-1999, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From what I see... Hubzilla brings the numerical facts.
The Big8/12 seems better. Then let's not forget the fact that in the past 10 years: Big8/12 - 4 National Championships (2 shared) Big 10 - 1 National Championship (1 shared) SEC - 3 National Championships (None Shared) ACC - 2 National Championships (1 shared) Heck... even the ACC fares better than the Big10 in winning the "big one". ------------------ Lowry Stiles... "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
|
|
#37
09-01-1999, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well to be accurate the numbers shown don't mean much. A better analysis would be of those ranked finishes how many are by the same teams? It doesn't make the big XII equal when 2/3 of those ranking s are garnered by 2 teams. Nebraska can't play itself. You've got to look at the rankings excluding the teams in question, and the combined opponents records.
|
|
#38
09-02-1999, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I was busy crunching the numbers. Hubzilla, you had best throw out that media guide because the numbers you gave are mostly wrong. Here are the real stats:
1996 AP 2-OSU 6-Neb 7-PSU 8-Col 15-NW 17-KSU 18-Iowa 23-Tex 20-Mich 1997 AP 1-Mich 2-Neb 12-OSU 8-KSU 15-Purdue 20-Tex A&M 16-PSU 23-Missou 24-Ok.St. 1998 AP 2-OSU 10-KSU 6-Wisc 11-Tex A&M 12-Mich 15-Texas 17-PSU 19-Neb 24-Purdue Notice that for 1996 and 1998, for every ranked Big 12 team, there is a higher ranked Big 10 team and there are more of them. In 1997, the Big 12 has the advantage in numbers, but 3 of the 5 teams are in the bottom 5. There's more data, but I don't have time to enter it now. More to come, TheDude
|
|
#39
09-02-1999, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Omniscient said:
Quote:
OSU(5), PSU(5), UM(5)= 15/22= 68% of Big Ten's Top 25 NWtern(2), Pur(2), Iowa(2), Wisc(1) NU(5), KSU(5), Colorado(3)=13/24= 54% of the Big XII's Top 25 Texas(4),A&M(3),Mizzou(2),KU(1),TexTech(1) (if I replaced CU with UT, it would be 58%) For the top 3 teams' bowl winning pct, The Big Ten won 60%, Big XII won 71% The Big XII had more variety in ranked teams, while the Big 10 was more top-heavy (PSU, OSU, UM). The top 3 Big XII teams appeared in the top 10 more often (10-6) and fared better in the bowls vs out-of-conference competition. TheDude said: Quote:
Year, Big 12, Big 10 (top 10) 1994: 5(2), 3(1) 1995: 7(4), 5(2) 1996: 4(2), 5(2) 1997: 4(2), 4(1) 1998: 4(1), 5(2) Big 12 teams still hold an 11-8 advantage in Top 10 teams and a 24-22 advantage in Top 25. I've included 5 Texas team rankings (no Top 10 teams, though) for 1994-95. It was easier than trying to compensate for 8 teams vs 11 in the Big Ten. Even though the Big 12 has one more team than the Big 10(sic), I don't see anything that significantly says the Big 10 is a stronger conference. I think a lot of the misconceptions about Nebraska's "easy schedule" is from the way they dominated their conference in the above years (except 1998). In 1995, they outscored their opponents 53-15 (avg), and 1997, 47-16, with only 2 games decided by less than 10 points. However, when NU played the SEC (IMHO the top conference) champ in the bowl games those years, they won by strikingly similar scores: beating #2 Florida 62-24 and #3 Tennessee 42-17 respectively. You can draw your own conclusion from the above, whether they benefit the Big XII or Big 10. I attend Nebraska, so I'm a little biased, as are Big 10 fans toward their schools. I'd be interested to hear from fans outside those conferences. ------------------ "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo
|
|
#40
09-02-1999, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As for the Big 12 numbers game, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado still dominated when they were the Big 8 (prior to 1996 season).
Looking back even farther: 1995 Big 8: Nebraska (1), Colorado (5), K State (7), Kansas (9) Big 10: Ohio St. (6), NU (8), Penn State, (13), Mich (17) Also, Texas (14) and Texas A&M (15), Then part of the SWC, but now Big XII members, were in the top 25... Big 8 had all four ranked schools in the TOP 10!. 1994, they had #1 and #3 (Nebraska and Colorado), but a huge influx of WAC schools into the Top 20 cut down on the numbers in the lower rankings. There is no doubt that as far as the POLLS are concerned, there is a HUGE Big 12/8 bias. Assuming "Tier 1" conferences to be: Big XII (Big 8 prior to 1996), Big 10, SEC, ACC, PAC-10 and SWC prior to 1996; "Tier 2" conferences to be: WAC/Mountain West, and Big East, and "Tier 3" to be MAC, Big West, and C-USA, we find some interesting stats: 1998 Tier 1: 17 Top 20 finishes Tier 2: 2 Tier 3: 1 1997 Tier 1: 18 Tier 2: 1 Tier 3: 1 1996 Tier 1: 17 Tier 2: 3 Tier 3: 0 1995 Tier 1: 17 Tier 2: 3 Tier 3: 0 1994 Tier 1: 16 Tier 2: 4 Tier 3: 0 1993 Tier 1: 17 Tier 2: 4 Tier 3: 0 1992 Tier 1: 17 Tier 2: 3 Tier 3: 0 1991 Tier 1: 17 Tier 2: 2 (including #1 Miami-Fl) Tier 3: 1 1990 Tier 1: 18 Tier 2: 2 Tier 3: 0 1989 Tier 1: 19 Tier 2: 1 (#1 Miami-FL) Tier 3: 0 So, for the past 10 seasons, "Top tier" conferences have accounted for greater than 3/4 all of the Top 20 finishes, with 1/2 of the teams. To be fair, The Big East was formed in 1990, so Miami-FL was techincally independant, but for simplicity sake I count them as Big East. Now, since the 1936 there have been (the beginning of the Media polls) only 6 National Champions that did not come from the "Tier 1" conferences (and by that I am judging by modern conferences) and none from "tier 3" conferences. Why are the MAC, Big West, and C-USA still IN Div I-A? Conference USA puts up a top 25 team evey 2-3 yars or so, and the last Big West school to crack the Top 20 was SD State in 1977. Even they play in the WAC now. No current Big West or MAC school has been ranked in the Top 20 since the splitting of Div I (1978). All of the founding Big West schools bolted for the WAC in the 1990's to give themselves a shot at being ranked, (precipitating the founding of the Moutain West conference to give charter WAC schools a shot at being ranked), currently the Big West is exclusively Big Sky (Div I-AA) schools that have been promoted from I-AA to I-A for no explainable reason. The best MAC school of recent years was Marshall, and they only joined in 1997. Let's demote these conferences down to I-AA and require I-A schools to play more I-A schools. In all likelyhood, Minnesota can make a bowl game this year by going 2-5 against Tier 1 schools. Not to pick on the Gophers, but things need to be recalculated here... ------------------ Jason R Remy "No amount of legislation can solve America's problems." -- Jimmy Carter (1980)
|
|
#41
09-02-1999, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I will freely admit that the Big 8 kicked the Big 10's ass in 1994 and 1995. But here's what I actually said:
Quote:
Year: Big10, Big12 1998: 5-0, 3-4 1997: 2-5, 2-3 1996: 4-3, 2-3 Total: 11-8, 7-10 Lastly, I would like to point out an excellent site for college football http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/rate . It is a compilation of all the computer ranking systems and the polls. I find that it is the most unbiased ranking available (although it too has its flaws) because these biases tend to average out. According to this ranking: 1998 Big10: 2,4,10,12,17,33,50,62,77,86,89; avg=40 1998 Big12: 6,9,15,16,20,29,40,44,54,68,75; avg=38 These data seem to indicate that the Big 12 is better overall although the Big 10's top 5 teams are clearly better. 1997 Big10: 3,11,17,19,25,32,46,58,80,91,105; avg=44 1997 Big12: 1,7,22,35,37,38,44,71,74,76,86,101; avg=49 Note the 5 to 3 ratio of Top 25 teams. 1996 Big10: 2,6,16,17,22,24,35,55,57,60,83; avg=34 1996 Big12: 4,7,18,21,32,41,54,59,69,70,71,73; avg=43 Except for Illinois, every Big10 team is ranked higher than the corresponding Big12 team. Each piece of data here is not conclusive in and of itself, but I think the overall picture is that the Big 10 has been better than the Big 12 for the last three years (although I have and will freely admit that the Big 8+4 was better in 1994 and 1995). Jason, that's an interesting point you bring up and I wholeheartedly agree. If we dropped the Big West, and combined the best of the MAC and C_USA into one conference, and redistrbuted the independents we could have 8 conferences of approx. 12 teams and have an 8 team playoff of their champions. But the logistics of that would be ungodly. TheDude
|
|
#42
09-03-1999, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you guys are falling into a circular logic pit fall. While I agree that we need to prune the D-IA, it is unreasonable to base that statement on the Tier I/ranking ratio. I'd counter that the conferences rated Tier I were rated as such because of their dominance, and not that the ratings were influenced by the Tier of their conference. Make sense?
For the record, the Big 10 is historically and recently a decidedly better conference. Not to mention that way too many of the Big XII schools play on turf, that is a big minus. I like to remind you of the importance of non-conference schedules. While I don't have the data, I'd wager with the likes of Notre Dame, Syracuse, and frequent PAC-10 rivals the Big 10 makes efforts to face the toughest competition. The difference is that Big 10 teams expect to be National Champs, Big XII teams conceed Nebraska and hope to make a bowl.
|
|
#43
09-03-1999, 01:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
TheDude, I understand you said the "last three years", but I was also answering an earlier posting by Omniscient:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare97.htm Of the 47 polls listed in 1997, Nebraska is #1 in 36 of them, Michigan only 9. In fact, Florida State finished #2, above Michigan in many of them. Quote:
Omniscient said: Quote:
------------------ "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo
|
|
#44
09-03-1999, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Uh, folks?
I know we all have strong opinions about who the best team was in any given year, but that really isn't the issue on this board. On this board, the issue is, why should NCAA football championships come down to a vote by sportswriters, rather than a real playoff! Whether you're a Nebraska/Big 12 booster or a Michigan/Big 10 fan OUGHT to be irrelevant. In recent years, Nebraska has shared a national title with a Big 10 team and squeaked past another undefeated Big 10 team (Penn State). I enjoy arguing hypotheticals as much as the next guy (for the record, I think Nebraska was probably better than Penn State, but I had zero respect for Scott Frost, and think Michigan was better than Nebraska. But again... who cares about MY opinion, or John Cooper's opinion, or ANY sportswriters' opinion? Why can't the top teams play each other? No sane person can argue that sportswriters' educated guesses are a better way to determine a champion than playing it out on the field. But if you REALLY think polls are the way to go, why stop at college football? Abolish the Super Bowl! Let the writers vote as to whether the NFC's top team would beat the AFC's top team. Of course, with a stupid system like that, the Colts would be the 1969 football champs, and the Packers would have walloped the Broncos in all the polls.
|
|
#45
09-04-1999, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
NFL: 31 teams, 17 week 16 game season, 6 week 3-4 game post season, good players play for 12-13 years. NCAA: 116 teams, 15 week, 11-12 game season, 4 week 1-2 game post season, good players play for 4 years MAX, most play 1-2 years as starters. Or how about this: Playoffs: a whole bunch of meaningless games, with only one that matters to ANYBODY. Bowl Games: a dozen games which make a whole lot of schools and advertisers BUTTLOADS of cash, and allow more than just 1/116th of all Div I-A schools claim a victory in their last game of the season. In a perfect world, none of this would matter. In the real world, it is the ONLY thing that matters. FTR, I am opposed to the BCS, since it takes the WORST parts of both a playoff and bowl game system (the existance of a predetermined championship game reduces the importance of all other bowl games, but the polls make the teams that appear in it arbitrary)... For how I correct for these problems, see my explanation above...
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
