U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2014, 03:11 PM
 
Location: So California
8,563 posts, read 8,920,254 times
Reputation: 4654

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
Your last two sentences aren't accurate at all. Pre BCS neither MSU nor OK would have played each other, or FSU, or Auburn. All four of those teams would have been tied into separate bowls, so the bowls would most certainly not have helped determine the best team.
Exactly, they dont play each other in the bcs or pre-bcs, it really didnt make a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
Although possibly in the mid-90's timeframe, immediately preceding the BCS, they may have been allowed to match up via the short-lived 'bowl alliance' or 'bowl coalition'. But there was no structure in place that attempted to match the top 2 teams in the nation.

So if you're in favor of traditional bowl matchups, with no playoff system at all, and #1 vs #2 only occasionally playing each other, when they happen to be from certain conferences, then that's fine. Personally I like a little more certainty in deciding the champion of a sport- play it on the field instead of deciding it by voters. Pre-bcs the champion was voted on. ugh.
No. Im only saying the pre bcs days were better than the bcs days. That the bcs championship didnt really do much, pre bcs voting was just as good and was more inclusive.
What I would love to see is a 12-16 team playoff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
Pre-bcs, *all* bowl games could be considered exhibition games. During the bcs at least one of the bowl games got to be something more substantial. And now starting next year several bowl games get to be more meaningful each year.
The bcs era, destroyed the conferences as teams tried constantly to huddle up in the power conference$. The playing field became smaller and smaller and instead of #1 being voted champ after bowl season, you had 1 & 2 voted champs before bowl season. There by making all other bowls big and small irrelevent. Next year you got 4. Baby steps I suppose, we need more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Arizona!
667 posts, read 1,088,469 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Exactly, they dont play each other in the bcs or pre-bcs, it really didnt make a difference.
But it did. pre-bcs none of them would have had the opportunity to settle it on the field. You would have had 4 separate games, and if they all won, then it comes down to a vote. At least this way, the 'vote' was before the games, and the result of the vote pitted 2 of them against each other to settle it on the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
No. Im only saying the pre bcs days were better than the bcs days. That the bcs championship didnt really do much, pre bcs voting was just as good and was more inclusive.
What I would love to see is a 12-16 team playoff.

The bcs era, destroyed the conferences as teams tried constantly to huddle up in the power conference$. The playing field became smaller and smaller and instead of #1 being voted champ after bowl season, you had 1 & 2 voted champs before bowl season. There by making all other bowls big and small irrelevent. Next year you got 4. Baby steps I suppose, we need more.
I don't think the bcs did anything to the conferences- teams have always jumped around, looking for the deals that were in their best interest. It's all about revenue.

Your post seems to say
a) "no" bracket > 2 team bracket
b) 4 or 12 or 16 team bracket > 2 team bracket

I disagree with a and agree with b...
I think most fans want the same thing- a playoff bracket with a bunch of teams... I just don't think we were ever going to go from 'none' to 4 or 8 without spending some time at 2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:36 AM
 
6,349 posts, read 8,422,832 times
Reputation: 1779
The problem with the bcs was the ranking system too. Teams in cupcake conferences can play cupcakes all year and by default of their conference can be ranked #1 or #2 whereas teams with harder schedules can't easily get ranked #1 or #2. There have been several occasions where the #2 ranked team especially shouldn't have even been in the top #10.

A playoff system eliminates the advantage cupcake conference teams have and shows who is truly good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 06:20 PM
 
6,611 posts, read 6,964,284 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc View Post
The problem with the bcs was the ranking system too. Teams in cupcake conferences can play cupcakes all year and by default of their conference can be ranked #1 or #2 whereas teams with harder schedules can't easily get ranked #1 or #2. There have been several occasions where the #2 ranked team especially shouldn't have even been in the top #10.

A playoff system eliminates the advantage cupcake conference teams have and shows who is truly good.
Yes, teams such as Baylor and Oklahoma State being ranked far too high because of their weak conference. I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Arizona!
667 posts, read 1,088,469 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc View Post
The problem with the bcs was the ranking system too. Teams in cupcake conferences can play cupcakes all year and by default of their conference can be ranked #1 or #2 whereas teams with harder schedules can't easily get ranked #1 or #2. There have been several occasions where the #2 ranked team especially shouldn't have even been in the top #10.
They tweaked the formula numerous times over the life of the bcs. I've heard complaints about the results but how would you modify the formula to provide 'better' results in which are the two top teams?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 05:39 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,417 posts, read 7,737,688 times
Reputation: 3069
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTarheel View Post
Yes, teams such as Baylor and Oklahoma State being ranked far too high because of their weak conference. I agree.
Was Bama ranked too high? (I DON'T think think it was, BTW.) I mean, lowly Oklahoma, from that weak conference, rolled 'em up . . .

Oklahoma State SHOULD have beat Missouri as well. That would have helped a bit. Baylor's loss to UCF was absolutely inexcusable and indicative of a team that had not been in that position before. Sad. K-State posted a decent win over Meechigan....yeh, the Wolverines are down, but it's still Michigan. Tech had a great win over Arizona St. If Oklahoma St. and UCF just go out and handle business the Big XII comes out smelling like roses in the bowl games. Along with Baylor's egg-laying against UCF, the Shorthorns losing to Oregon in such a bad way was unacceptable too.

As for A&M/Mizzwho, most of us here in Big XII country still consider them Big XII teams. Stoops made the point (a correct one I believe) that neither A&M/Missouri did much in the Big XII in 15 years. Now they're tearing through the SEC and competing every week of the season. Plus, Missouri had a bit easy too in the Big XII North with only Nebraska and occasionally K-State to deal with. I think it's clear that many of the teams in the SEC are overrated. The two best SEC teams (Bama/Auburn lossed their bowl games and the third best team, Missouri, came within one minute/play of losing.)

SEC = overhyped conference by the media. The truth is, that each conference is relatively top-heavy. There are only a few teams at the top of each conference of the Big 5 (Big XII, SEC, PAC, ACC, B1G) that are really elite type teams from year to year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC
2,532 posts, read 2,954,442 times
Reputation: 1357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
As for A&M/Mizzwho, most of us here in Big XII country still consider them Big XII teams. Stoops made the point (a correct one I believe) that neither A&M/Missouri did much in the Big XII in 15 years. Now they're tearing through the SEC and competing every week of the season. Plus, Missouri had a bit easy too in the Big XII North with only Nebraska and occasionally K-State to deal with. I think it's clear that many of the teams in the SEC are overrated. The two best SEC teams (Bama/Auburn lossed their bowl games and the third best team, Missouri, came within one minute/play of losing.)

SEC = overhyped conference by the media. The truth is, that each conference is relatively top-heavy. There are only a few teams at the top of each conference of the Big 5 (Big XII, SEC, PAC, ACC, B1G) that are really elite type teams from year to year.
Texas A&M is only doing stuff because of Sumlin and Manziel. Sumlin didn't coach in the Big 12 and Manziel didn't play in the Big 12 (redshirted his first year). Now with Manziel gone, it will be interesting to see if they are still any good, esp with that poor excuse for a defense.

Mizzou is still Mizzou. Don't be fooled by this year. Out of conference a joke. Florida down. Georgia down star players. Conner Shaw was injured and didn't come in until the second half in South Carolina loss. The rest of the east is a snoozefest. And the only West team worth a half an ass you see they didn't have a defense and only one by a score. Next year will still look like this for them but again don't be fooled... Florida still down. Georgia stars gone. South Carolina rebuild. Out of Conference weak (UCF will lose Blake Bortles so not the same team). Rest of the east still the same. Texas A&M rematch see above.

Bringing back around... Texas A&M and Mizzou of today have nothing to do with the Big 12.

Oklahoma had a nice win no doubt but the other two leading Big 12 programs laid big eggs on the national stage. Mizzou won by 10 on OK State so not sure how it was within one minute/play of losing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Waco, TX
977 posts, read 1,634,952 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncopus99 View Post
Mizzou won by 10 on OK State so not sure how it was within one minute/play of losing...
Choklahoma State had driven to the red zone with about a minute left, but ended up fumbling, which Missouri returned for a touchdown. One play, potential 14 point swing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 08:10 PM
 
6,611 posts, read 6,964,284 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Was Bama ranked too high? (I DON'T think think it was, BTW.) I mean, lowly Oklahoma, from that weak conference, rolled 'em up . . .

Oklahoma State SHOULD have beat Missouri as well. That would have helped a bit. Baylor's loss to UCF was absolutely inexcusable and indicative of a team that had not been in that position before. Sad. K-State posted a decent win over Meechigan....yeh, the Wolverines are down, but it's still Michigan. Tech had a great win over Arizona St. If Oklahoma St. and UCF just go out and handle business the Big XII comes out smelling like roses in the bowl games. Along with Baylor's egg-laying against UCF, the Shorthorns losing to Oregon in such a bad way was unacceptable too.

As for A&M/Mizzwho, most of us here in Big XII country still consider them Big XII teams. Stoops made the point (a correct one I believe) that neither A&M/Missouri did much in the Big XII in 15 years. Now they're tearing through the SEC and competing every week of the season. Plus, Missouri had a bit easy too in the Big XII North with only Nebraska and occasionally K-State to deal with. I think it's clear that many of the teams in the SEC are overrated. The two best SEC teams (Bama/Auburn lossed their bowl games and the third best team, Missouri, came within one minute/play of losing.)

SEC = overhyped conference by the media. The truth is, that each conference is relatively top-heavy. There are only a few teams at the top of each conference of the Big 5 (Big XII, SEC, PAC, ACC, B1G) that are really elite type teams from year to year.

I do think that Alabama was overrated this year...they were ranked on their name, conference, and previous seasons. They were a top 10 team, but not a #1 team. It's easy to say that now.

I did think that Oklahoma was a bit underrated, and I definitely agree with your last statement about the conferences. There are elite teams almost every year in every conference and then there is everyone else. That doesn't mean that the others aren't any good, just that they don't win like an elite team. It's very difficult to go undefeated or even to lose only once, no matter which conference - ask Northern Illinois.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top