Online Now 3668

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1959
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3576
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Helwagen: BCS, Bowl Thoughts

  • http://247sports.com/Article/We-look-at-the-compelling-bowl-match-ups-and-future-playoff-plan-105325

    General thoughts on the BCS games and other bowls. Plus, who deserves to play for national title, what a new playoff will look like, coaching carousel, Heisman and more.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • Check check

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • clap

    Good summary and what the new playoff would look like if in play now!

    signature image signature image signature image

    buckeye9595

  • I have not seen any published lines for the bowl games yet, but after looking over the matchups, I think Northwestern is the only BT team that I see as being favored. Unfortunately I think the BT takes its lumps again. Now, if The Buckeyes were playing I'd add them to the win column.

    Nutbuck1 ●

  • Nutbuck1 said...

    I have not seen any published lines for the bowl games yet, but after looking over the matchups, I think Northwestern is the only BT team that I see as being favored. Unfortunately I think the BT takes its lumps again. Now, if The Buckeyes were playing I'd add them to the win column.

    Sad, but true, and worse than usual. With OSU and State Penn ineligible, everyone else moves up two spots and plays stronger competition than they otherwise would...

    signature image signature image signature image

    buckeye9595

  • You labeled Stanford as a lesser opponent? In the same vein as Purdue, Pitt, and BYU?loco

    Also Stanford is a top-10 team which Oregon played.

    This post was edited by MJRuffalo on 12/6/2012 at 1:40 AM

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • This post is for members of 247Sports only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    sarasotabcg

  • Mistake: John L. Was not Auburns coach..he was at Arkansas

    Tim Tackett

  • Got it, thanks

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • sarasotabcg said...

    Bama can't get by TAM at home and how far did they fall in the polls? Oregon can't get by Stanford at home and how far did they fall in the polls?

    We know that TAM carries more interest than Stanford with Johnny Football and all, but can we really say they are better than Stanford, thus giving Bama the benefit of the doubt for their loss while punishing Oregon for theirs?

    ND has looked beatable, but being undefeated justifies where they are. Bama has looked beatable. Outside of their Stanford loss, Oregon has looked unstoppable. To argue that Bama is where they are because they beat 3 top ten teams has me questioning just how far SEC teams fall in the polls after a loss. It's almost a selffulfilling prophecy to have an SEC team at the top when voters don't punish them for losses like they do for non- SEC teams.

    In the 90's FL and FSU played in the regular season when they were ranked #1 and #2. Voters decided not to punish the loser, so they replayed in a defacto NC bowl game. In the mid 2000's Mich and OSU played in the regular season when they were ranked #1 and #2. Voters decided to punish the loser using the 'hey, they had their chance' argument. Last year LSU and Bama played in the regular season when they were ranked #1 and #2. Voters decided not to punish the loser and they replayed each other in the NC game. In this case, the losing team didn't even win their division let alone their conference. There's a clear pattern of bias here. In the mid 2000's we had OSU

    This is what I wrote:

    "The Ducks didn’t play any AP top-10 teams – Alabama played and beat three of them. Their losses – to teams in the mid-teens, and both at home – were comparable."

    The Stanford and TAM losses by those teams were comparable. What sets Alabama apart from Oregon is the schedule. Alabama's was tougher.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • One more thought, if Ohio State was eligible and we were looking at the next format (4-team playoff), you might have something like this:

    * Cotton Bowl (national semifinal) – Notre Dame (1) vs. Florida (4) ... now Oregon and Kansas State (both deserving here) get riffed

    * Orange Bowl (national semifinal) – Alabama (2) vs. Ohio State (3) ... Either way Alabama is 2 or Ohio State is 2, they'd be playing each other in the 2-3 game

    * Sugar Bowl – Georgia (8) vs. Kansas State (6) … This will be the newly crowned Champions Bowl with the top available teams from the SEC and Big 12 after the semifinals are matched up.

    * Chick-Fil-A Bowl – Florida State (13) vs. Northern Illinois (16) … FSU gets an automatic spot as ACC champion and so does NIU as the highest ranked champion from the “other” conferences.

    * Rose Bowl – Stanford (7) vs. Oklahoma (12) ... The one thing I am unclear about is what happens if Big Ten champ goes to semifinal. Will they take next available team, like Oklahoma, or will they still drop down and take a Big Ten team? Next highest ranked Big Ten team is Nebraska at what would be No. 17. That's unclear to me.

    * Fiesta Bowl – LSU (9) vs. Oregon (5) … Oregon lands here instead of in the semis if OSU was eligible at 12-0/13-0 with Big Ten win over Nebraska.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • Under the new deal ... it looks like Big Ten teams will be shut out of the Sugar unless they go there for a national semifinal or the championship game.

    Likewise, the Orange has the ACC on one side and signed a deal with Notre Dame, SEC and Big Ten for the other side. That's where a No. 2 Big Ten team will head in some years it appears. They would only go to Fiesta, Chick-Fil-A, Cotton and maybe Sugar as fillers or semifinalists. That's too bad because Fiesta is best bowl trip out there.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • Steve, since when did traditional become archaic? I'm referring to your suggestion that Wisconsin, the B10 last man standing, doesn't deserve the Rose for various reasons (although I think they acquitted themselves very well by the way they demolished Nebraska). Are you willing to completely give up the traditional B-whatever-Pac-whatever tie-ins to the Rose? I understand it seems we're moving inexorably toward the professionalization of CFB, but are we ready to jettison history and tradition completely in order to achieve that?

    Excellent article, BTW.

    This post was edited by nonotagain on 12/6/2012 at 11:11 AM

    nonotagain

  • nonotagain said...

    Steve, since when did traditional become archaic? I'm referring to your suggestion that Wisconsin, the B10 last man standing, doesn't deserve the Rose for various reasons (although I think they acquitted themselves very well by the way they demolished Nebraska). Are you willing to completely give up the traditional B-whatever-Pac-whatever tie-ins to the Rose? I understand it seems we're moving inexorably toward the professionalization of CFB, but are we ready to jettison history and tradition completely in order to achieve that?

    Excellent article, BTW.

    No, I think it's fine and should stay that way forever. But to have an unranked team in a BCS bowl, there have to be some standards. I dunno what the balance is. Wisconsin in a BCS bowl and Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and South Carolina not? Makes no sense at all.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • possibly the best article I've read on this site. thank you

    signature image signature image signature image

    Cerpin Taxt

  • Cerpin Taxt said...

    possibly the best article I've read on this site. thank you

    Thanks for the comment!!

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • MJRuffalo said...

    You labeled Stanford as a lesser opponent? In the same vein as Purdue, Pitt, and BYU?loco

    Also Stanford is a top-10 team which Oregon played.

    Yeah, Stanford should not probably be in that list. They are a quality team. That was a close shave for ND, though. I was listening on the radio call for that and if Don Criqui says he didn't get in, that's good enough for me.

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • SteveHelwagen said...

    This is what I wrote:

    "The Ducks didn’t play any AP top-10 teams – Alabama played and beat three of them. Their losses – to teams in the mid-teens, and both at home – were comparable."

    The Stanford and TAM losses by those teams were comparable. What sets Alabama apart from Oregon is the schedule. Alabama's was tougher.

    The above is incorrect. Oregon played and lost to 1 top-10 team. Bama did play 3 top-10 teams, but lost to 1 of them. Not arguing with you that Bama has the better resume than Oregon though.

    Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

    MJRuffalo

  • MJRuffalo said...

    The above is incorrect. Oregon played and lost to 1 top-10 team. Bama did play 3 top-10 teams, but lost to 1 of them. Not arguing with you that Bama has the better resume than Oregon though.

    I was going by the rankings on the day they played. Heck, I even cited them. Stanford is top-10 now, while they were 15th on the day of the game. Alabama's loss was to TAM which was 15th on game day and top-10 now.

    Alabama beat Michigan (8 on game day), Miss State (11 on game day), LSU (5 on game day) and Georgia (3 on game day) and lost to TAM (15 on game day).

    By the same measure, Oregon beat Arizona (22 on game day), Washington (23), USC (17) and Oregon State (15) and lost to Stanford (13th on game day).

    SteveHelwagen ●

  • First off all I strongly disagree with the way tge playoff is set up and in no circumstance should any conference have more than one team.

    TRU JDUB

  • @sarasotabcg...you need to do your homework regarding SEC teams being punished for their losses:

    1996 - #1 UF lost to #2 FSU at the end of the regular season. They dropped to #4. Texas beat #3 Nebraska in the Big 12 conference championship game allowing #3 UF to play #1 FSU in the sugar bowl. #2 Arizona State(unbeaten) played Ohio State in the Rose bowl and lost allowing the winner of the Sugar to be NC. Had ASU won, they would have been NC over UF.

    2006 - #2 Michigan lost to #1 OSU in week 12 of the regular season. The next week, Michigan remained #2 in the AP poll and dropped 1 spot to #3 in the coaches poll(USC jumped them). USC lost to UCLA on the final weekend of the season and #4 UF won the SEC conference championship game. UF jumped Michigan giving them a chance to play #1 Ohio State for the title.

    2011 - #1 Bama lost to #2 LSU in week 10 of the regular season. They dropped to #4 in all polls but jumped back to #2 when Okie State and Stanford lost. Oregon and Oklahoma were in the picture but both lost in the final 2 weeks of the season allowing Bama to remain at #2.

    Basically, Michigan was punished less than UF or Bama after their loss in 2006. Yuo can argue that it was unfair to have Michigan jumped by Florida in the final poll but they were not punished any more than the SEC schools for their loss. In fact, they weren't punished at all if you want to go by the AP poll following the loss.

    bamabum5 ●

  • Wow Steve, you remind me of another Steve we had the unfortunate task of tolerating as a headcoach. You're certianly as clueless as the other Steve.

    signature image

    TheodoreSVader179518

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports