maybe that’s my problem . . I don’t watch ESPN except for an hour on Saturday from 11:00 to 12:00.
Look all I’m saying is the SEC is a tough as nails conference. I used UF as an example to say even when they suck, you can’t underestimate them. You can’t judge the toughness of a conference exclusively by looking at the entire conference’s non-conference play. Is it a factor, yes, but I think it is more nuanced than the statistics Neuritk cited suggest. Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s that straightforward.
I’m tired of people lauding the fucking thieves in the ACC as “such a wonderful conference” and the Big East as “borderline” when it’s the ACC’s fucking fault we sit there. What are the stats for the REAL teams in the ACC, with such powerhouse programs as Duke, Wake Forest and North Carolina?
I just think it doesn’t say a lot about a conference when the 2 best teams were in another one just a year earlier.
Broooonnnk! Tennessee 10, Miami 6. November 11th, 2003.
Someone has already mentioned in this thread that the SEC was 5-2 in bowl games last year. Bowl games should match the better teams from the conferences against each other. Are you failing to take bowl games into account? Or is it that since the bowl game results don’t support your case, you choose to ignore them?
Missed that one. OK, so tack on another win to Tennessee. I still wouldn’t be bragging about their non-conference record the past three years to support the SEC’s toughness.
I already took Bowl games into account in one of my past posts. But fine, let’s take Bowl games into account. So far this year, the SEC is 4-4 against other majors. Last year, including bowl games, the SEC was 12-11. In 2002, it was 9-14. For a combined record of 25-29.
The only SEC team to distinguish itself in that period looks to be Georgia, who went 7-0 against the other majors. And, um, Kentucky, who has gone 3-0 but all three came against Indiana.
What it points to is exactly what everyone here said. The SEC is the best conference some years, not the best conference other years.
Is the SEC the best conference this year? Possibly, we’ll have to wait and see how the Bowl games turn out.
Well, looks like an update is in order, considering the events of the last few days.
Ah, how sweet. It’s worked out almost as well as it could have for those who believe that the current system is a joke. No matter who wins tomorrow night’s game, there will be not one, not two, but three undefeated teams (Pity Boise State couldn’t have won). That, along with the AP pulling out, leaves the BCS in a sorry state. What are they going to say now, that the system needs more “tweaking”?
The playoff isn’t here yet, but I hope this means we’re one step closer.
The last that I heard was they were going to appoint a ‘blue ribbon’ panel to pick teams in the place of the AP poll. The only problem is that the panel would be made up of representatives from the BCS conferences. No confilict of interest there, I am sure.
OK, this has been bugging me for a while now. How did Utah get stuck playing Pitt?
I thought the system worked like this - the #1 and #2 play in the featured bowl. Bowls with contracts to have a particular conference champion get that team. Teams losing their contracted team to the featured bowl then get to pick a qualified team to fill that slot. Then whatever leftover slots get filled by the bowls in some prearranged order.
So, in other words, in 2004 it went something like this.
Orange - automatically gets USC and Oklahoma.
Rose - automatically gets Michigan, empty slot.
Fiesta - two empty slots.
Sugar - automatically gets Auburn, empty slot.
Since the Rose and Fiesta lost their contracted champions, they get the next two picks. Fiesta picks Utah, because they’re the only other undefeated team. Rose is left with the options of VA Tech, Texas and Pitt. It picks Texas. Sugar is left with the option of VA Tech or Pitt. Obviously, it takes Tech. So Fiesta is left with Pitt.
Is that right? That’s got to be the way it worked.
adam yax, I’ve heard about the selection committee but it’s not the selections that are the problem, it’s the system. No matter how they’re selected, there still are three undefeated teams at the end of this year, casting yet more light on the travesty that is the BCS.
Not that it’ll make a difference. Unless the public pressure becomes so great that sponsorship, TV ratings, and the money that goes along with those things go away, there’s not going to be a playoff anytime soon.
I still don’t understand why they’ve consistently turned down even the slightest hint of a multigame playoff system, something that exists in all other major NCAA sports at all levels. If it’s TV ratings, that equals fan interest, and I’ve never heard a single fan suggest that the championship wouldn’t be best settled on the field. If it’s the bowls’ own income that matters, how is that lessened by making them matter? Only one really does, now - the rest get only serious fans and bettors to watch. If it’s the schools’ income that matters, the more games they can sell to the networks, the better. If it’s the time away from class for the players that matters, why is that not a concern in the lower divisions?
I’d be happy with the Plus One proposal that was seriously considered last year. Just seed and play the bowl games, eliminating some contenders, then a committee picks 2 of the winners to play for the title 2 weeks later in another game that would be in one of the major bowl facilities. Every major bowl matters then, and the nets have another product to sell their advertisers, and the fans are happy. Who here wouldn’t want to see Auburn play the USC/OU winner on Monday Night Football this coming Jan. 17?
It’s not just about the money, it’s about who controls the money. Right now the 6 “major” conferences have their grasping, scheming hands in a death grip around the bowl payouts and they’re going to do their best to see that it remains that way. They’re probably already ticked off that Utah got a chunk of it this year.
No question it’s about money - I’m wondering about the mechanics of it. I’m simply mystified *how * the money argument against even a minimal playoff system works.
The majors would still be in charge with the Plus One system - most of the top teams are in the top conferences, duh.
i think the dragging the games out sucks royaly too. I know they probably make more money this way, but as a viewer I’m not watching. I’m sick of college football now.
They give you a little taste on the 30th, a little more on the 31st, then on the 1st they hit you between the eyes wtih football from 10am-10pm. What a day! Then they make you wait 2 days and give you one more game, then wait again and see another. I’d rather have it like the old days, all the big games on the 1st.
If it means skipping the Boise bowl or the Poulan Weedeater bowl to move them back to the first, well, that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
The closest I can figure is that the university presidents oppose it because it’s too much like a playoff. I don’t know if they are concerned about slippery slopes or if it’s simply the idea of something that is playoff-like.
I don’t know what the proposal is, but wouldn’t a playoff system take too long? Anyway, I don’t care if there are playoffs. I just want the Rose Bowl back the way it should be – Pac-10 and Big-10 leaders. This juggling the bowl games around is nonsense.
If you have a sweet-16 playoffs, it would take 4 weeks. And, at that, only 2 teams would play all 4 weeks; only 4 teams would play 3 weeks; 8 teams would play 2 weeks; and 16 teams would play an extra week. You could double the teams to 32 and add only one more week. But 5 weeks might be excessive. Oklahoma hasn’t played a regular season game since before Thanksgiving; and both USC and Oklahoma haven’t played since December 4th (about 4 weeks). So the question is not about time but about the number of games they play. Most teams now play 12 regular season games, which would stretch to 16 for 2 teams, 15 for 4 teams, 14 for 8 teams and 13 for 16 teams under a playoff system. But if the NCAA cut back to 11 game schedules as it used to be (did Auburn really need to play the Citadel this year?) then the number of games would be manageable. Remember that only 2 teams would play 15 games. 1AA is the only division in the NCAA that does not have a playoff system. The two participants in the division II championship this year (Valdosta St. and Pittsburgh St.) played 14 and 15 games respectively. There are 11 1AA conferences. The 11 division winners plus 5 wild cards would participate in the playoffs. Of course, the SEC, Big-12 and MAC conferences have 2 divisions each, so they would need to play a conference championship to determine the winner (as they do anyway). The only difficulty, then, becomes choosing the 5 at-large participants. But this would be much less controversial than the crappy BCS system.
