The CardBoard
Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... (/thread-6222.html)

Pages: 1 2

Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Hank 91 - 12-01-2013

Stanford was ranked #10 and Michigan State was ranked #11 in last week's USA Today poll.
On Saturday Michigan State beat a mediocre Minnesota team, 14-3.
On Saturday Stanford beat Notre Dame (who beat Michigan State, incidentally).

Stanford still sits at #10 in the current poll, but Michigan State has inexplicably leapfrogged to #9.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - stupac2 - 12-01-2013

I am so glad that these polls become irrelevant starting next year.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Farm93 - 12-01-2013

This was all about increasing the odds that the B1G can get two BCS bowl teams even if MSU falls to tOSU next week.  I would love to see how the midwestern media and B1G coaches voted this week and compare that to their votes last week. 

As it stands, even with the mystery boost it is possible for the B1G to not have two eligible BCS teams next week.  That COULD mean that the Rose Bowl would get to pick a replacement from a different conference and the OBVIOUS pick would be an SEC at-large team.  Hello Bama!

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - dabigv13 - 12-01-2013

(12-01-2013, 02:14 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:This was all about increasing the odds that the B1G can get two BCS bowl teams even if MSU falls to tOSU next week.  I would love to see how the midwestern media and B1G coaches voted this week and compare that to their votes last week. 

As it stands, even with the mystery boost it is possible for the B1G to not have two eligible BCS teams next week.  That COULD mean that the Rose Bowl would get to pick a replacement from a different conference and the OBVIOUS pick would be an SEC at-large team.  Hello Bama!

That's what I'm hoping for. Playing a nonchamp MSU team is worst case scenario.

Harris poll looking better at least.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - dabigv13 - 12-01-2013

(12-01-2013, 02:14 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:This was all about increasing the odds that the B1G can get two BCS bowl teams even if MSU falls to tOSU next week.  I would love to see how the midwestern media and B1G coaches voted this week and compare that to their votes last week. 

As it stands, even with the mystery boost it is possible for the B1G to not have two eligible BCS teams next week.  That COULD mean that the Rose Bowl would get to pick a replacement from a different conference and the OBVIOUS pick would be an SEC at-large team.  Hello Bama!

Just looked up the selection orders. It's pretty asinine, but here's how it would work- the Orange Bowl would be losing the ACC champ to the National Title game, so they would have a replacement as well. Since Florida State would be ranked no 1 and Ohio State would be no 2, the Orange Bowl would have first pick, and would presumably select an SEC at-large, and I'm guessing they would look for Alabama first. The SEC champ would be in the Sugar Bowl. If no Big-10 team is available, we'd probably play Baylor or something.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - stupac2 - 12-01-2013

(12-01-2013, 03:36 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Just looked up the selection orders. It's pretty asinine, but here's how it would work- the Orange Bowl would be losing the ACC champ to the National Title game, so they would have a replacement as well. Since Florida State would be ranked no 1 and Ohio State would be no 2, the Orange Bowl would have first pick, and would presumably select an SEC at-large, and I'm guessing they would look for Alabama first. The SEC champ would be in the Sugar Bowl. If no Big-10 team is available, we'd probably play Baylor or something.

It's starting to look like some voters are moving MSU up to keep them eligible if they lose. Previously they could count on Wisconsin, but after they pooped the bed against PSU that goes out the window. If that kind of shenanigans continues, they'll likely stay in the top 14 even with a loss.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Hank 91 - 12-01-2013

The hope is that the Orange Bowl might want to replace Florida State with another ACC team. If so, they'd select Clemson, leaving Alabama for the Rose Bowl.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - stupac2 - 12-01-2013

(12-01-2013, 03:52 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:The hope is that the Orange Bowl might want to replace Florida State with another ACC team. If so, they'd select Clemson, leaving Alabama for the Rose Bowl.

Except that they're not dumb, so they'd pick Alabama first, knowing that the Rose won't take Clemson second. I mean, maybe the Rose says "FU we'll take Clemson out of spite", but I don't think it's likely.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Farm93 - 12-01-2013

These bowls claim to have some conference loyalty.  The Orange would really need to take Clemson.  Clemson was in the national title hunt all year long, so it is not a bad pick.  Orange could take Alabama, but they would have some explainin' to do.

Just look at the Rose Bowl.  There is no doubt they will take MSU, if eligible, even though MSU was NEVER in the title hunt and would clearly not be the best school available.

Not too worried about any of this since Stanford is actually an underdog, so it is not a given Stanford will be in the Rose Bowl.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - stupac2 - 12-01-2013

(12-01-2013, 04:22 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:These bowls claim to have some conference loyalty.  The Orange would really need to take Clemson.  Clemson was in the national title hunt all year long, so it is not a bad pick.  Orange could take Alabama, but they would have some explainin' to do.

Just look at the Rose Bowl.  There is no doubt they will take MSU, if eligible, even though MSU was NEVER in the title hunt and would clearly not be the best school available.

Not too worried about any of this since Stanford is actually an underdog, so it is not a given Stanford will be in the Rose Bowl.

You misunderstand me. If OSU and FSU win, then the order of picking replacements will be:

1) Orange (replace the #1 team)
2) Rose (replace the #2 team)
3) Orange (first at-large selection this year)

So the Orange will take Alabama with choice number 1 because there's no way in hell that the Rose is taking Clemson. Then the Orange takes Clemson with pick #3, for the matchup that they really want. Now, it's possible that the Rose will take Clemson out of spite (as I said before), but that seems unlikely to me.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Bruce Wang - 12-01-2013

There are a couple other highly unlikely scenarios:

1. Duke upsets FSU. I think this means Duke goes to the Orange, and then the Rose is free to pick Bama
2. Winston gets indicted and the voters punish FSU.  FSU still beats Duke and goes to Orange
3. OSU underwhelms v MSU, Auburn demolishes MU and somehow jumps OSU in the BCS.  Rose gets OSU.

All this intellectual masturbation is fun, but what would be really fun is beating ASU and then beating whoever in the Rose.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - SamAtoms1980 - 12-02-2013

(12-01-2013, 01:08 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Stanford was ranked #10 and Michigan State was ranked #11 in last week's USA Today poll.
On Saturday Michigan State beat a mediocre Minnesota team, 14-3.
On Saturday Stanford beat the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends (who beat Michigan State, incidentally).

Stanford still sits at #10 in the current poll, but Michigan State has inexplicably leapfrogged to #9.

Next time you blog with the enemy, remember who the real enemy is...

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - dabigv13 - 12-02-2013

Well, as a point of comparison, Wisconsin dropped 6 spots from 15 to 21 after their loss to Penn State. Michigan State is at 10 now, and 11 in the computers. I think it will be close, but I bet they would drop exactly to #14 with a loss to Ohio State.

Assuming we win, they lose, in the Coaches poll they would fall behind us, Clemson, and Oregon. Probably stay ahead of ASU. They would probably stay ahead of Northern Ill in the polls, but they would fall behind them in the BCS for sure based on computer rankings. Because ASU's computer numbers are insane and I think they would drop about equally in the polls in the event of a loss, I think ASU would also jump them in the final BCS rankings. That would put them right at #14 in the BCS rankings. Would MSU drop behind a 3 loss LSU, 2 loss Oklahoma, or 1 loss UCF? I think not, at least not with all the Big 10 coaches trying to keep their horse in the race.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - OutsiderFan - 12-02-2013

(12-02-2013, 04:42 AM)garvin link Wrote:I don't see any reason to think the selection committee that chooses the teams for the playoffs will be any better than the coaches in the USA Today poll. You think there won't be politicking and lobbying among the committee members?

It probably will be quite similar to the NCAA tournament fields and how teams are seeded in all other NCAA sports.  Only difference is instead of selecting four number one seeds and a field of 64, they'll be selecting just number one seeds. 

Man, when you think of it this way, the whole idea of limiting playoffs to four teams seems absurd.  It is commonplace for seeds lower than #1 to win championships in every sport.  In fact, the last two Super Bowl winners wouldn't have even made the playoffs if the NFL followed college football practices. 

I just find it distasteful as a fan that championship opportunities are given to undefeated teams playing the weakest schedules (I'm talking to you, Florida State and Ohio State).  The death of the BCS can't come soon enough for me, so I'll happily trade politicking to chose four teams, and hopefully ultimately, eight teams, over what this last BCS season is poised to deliver.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - bazza97 - 12-02-2013

(12-02-2013, 07:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I just find it distasteful as a fan that championship opportunities are given to undefeated teams playing the weakest schedules (I'm talking to you, Florida State and Ohio State).  The death of the BCS can't come soon enough for me, so I'll happily trade politicking to chose four teams, and hopefully ultimately, eight teams, over what this last BCS season is poised to deliver.

Hypothetically, if the selection committee were in place this year, do you see them picking any team other than FSU, tOSU, Auburn and Alabama (assuming no more losses)?  Just wondering how it might have played out this year.  I wonder if there will be a reward for playing a tougher schedule in the future since computer rankings won't be a direct factor.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - Griffins78 - 12-02-2013

(12-02-2013, 07:42 AM)garvin link Wrote:Back when the NCAA basketball tournament's field was limited to 25 teams, there were widespread and bitter complaints about the selection process and the supposed backroom dealing that went on. It wasn't until the field expanded to 64 and virtually every team that had the remotest shot at winning was included that the volume of complaints subside, though you still hear some conspiratorial accusations from bubble teams every spring. My guess is that it would take a football tournament of at least 16 teams to keep complaints to a reasonable levels. And that includes us.
Makes sense - but we'll still have Seeds - and the top seeds will get the better draws and easiest path to the championship.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - OutsiderFan - 12-02-2013

To me, you need to see the championship games play out before settling on a Top 4 teams, and there has to be some sort of factoring in of SOS, and maybe even something like the UPS team efficiency ranking too.  Then there should be deference to winning the biggest games at the end of the season (kind of like the NCAA hoops tournament uses last 10 games played as a measure) in seedings and selections.

By this score, Alabama is out in my book.  They had the game in hand and couldn't get it done.  It would be like Stanford losing to Oregon but beating USC.  Stanford had to beat Oregon to win its division and did it.  Alabama had to beat Auburn to win theirs and didn't.

Whoever loses their conference championship game is out too.  So four teams would be eliminated this weekend.  For example purposes, let's say these teams win this weekend: Florida State, Ohio State, Stanford, Missouri.

Auburn is now out.  That makes Florida State, Ohio State, Missouri the top three.  So it comes down to Oklahoma State and Stanford for the last spot.  If Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma, they get the 4th spot, no matter what Stanford does against ASU.  But if Oklahoma State loses, then Stanford gets the 4th spot.  That's about as equitable a way I can see to apply playoff principles to an imperfect system. 

My guess is Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma, so it would be:

1. Florida State vs. 4. Oklahoma State
2. Ohio State vs. #3 Missouri








Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - stupac2 - 12-02-2013

(12-02-2013, 07:42 AM)garvin link Wrote:Back when the NCAA basketball tournament's field was limited to 25 teams, there were widespread and bitter complaints about the selection process and the supposed backroom dealing that went on. It wasn't until the field expanded to 64 and virtually every team that had the remotest shot at winning was included that the volume of complaints subsided, though you still hear some conspiratorial accusations from bubble teams every spring. My guess is that it would take a football tournament of at least 16 teams to keep complaints to a reasonable levels. And that includes us.

I think that the issue is that there's a lot more parity in basketball because fielding a 5-man team is so much easier than a 24-man starting squad. I mean, once we get late into the season, how often is a #16 (or thereabouts) upsetting a #4 or 5? Obviously it happens (it just happened to us, though that was at their house and the tournament would be neutral field), but it's not that common. I think comparisons to the NFL don't quite work either because there's just so much more parity in the NFL.

I think that 8 teams is where you need to be to have reasonable confidence that any team left out wouldn't make a run. And since 8 teams lets you do the 5 major conference champs and 3 at large teams, you know how to get in: win your conference. If you don't do that, tough shit, win your conference.

I'd like to see a 16-team tournament, but I don't think it's reasonable to ask these kids to play two more games on top of the one more we're already making them play starting next year. 16 games to get to the championship is a lot. If the regular season were significantly reshuffled then maybe it could work, but that seems unlikely to me.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - stupac2 - 12-02-2013

I don't really care if fans go crazy like that. Besides, in an 8-team playoff Alabama would still make it in, they just wouldn't be guaranteed a spot. The guaranteed spots would go to the winners of the 5 major conferences, then you'd have 3 at larges for the likes of Alabama (or whoever).

I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that it should be 16, but I'm just not sure that we can justify expanding the season that extra game in order to add a bunch of extra at larges who failed to win their conferences and also failed to win impressively enough to get one of the 3 at large bids. I used to like the idea of a "Death to the BCS" style 16-team tournament with every single conference winner, but watching NIU a couple times this year that just seems so pointless to me, they're clearly so much worse than even a middling major conference team, why give them the slot?

I think with 16 you'd have to pretty significantly rearrange the regular season, and I'm not sure that's feasible.

Re: Another reason why I'm glad I don't have to worry about the BCS anymore... - dabigv13 - 12-02-2013

8 was always the obvious choice. So of course we're stuck with 4.