Online Now 4017

The Blue Board

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

On this Board 2161
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3813
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

How the AP title is more "legit" than the BCS award.

  • SignalBama said...

    Did Alabama have the opportunity to beat LSU at home ? How did they receive a mulligan for that and not OSU for losing on the road in OT ? If your argument is based around the single concept that OSU had a chance if they went undefeated.... Why wasn't Alabama held to the same standards with a weaker overall schedule ? I am an Alabama fan... I live and breathe Alabama football... But the system in place rewarded one team while hindering another and by your argument one team was getting held to a different standard than the other.

    "It doesn't matter if you played a weaker schedule you lost to number 1 at home in OT. So anyone else must go undefeated to get in over you now even if their resume of overall wins is better."

    Now both teams had a case this past season. Both teams with the way things worked out still deserved an opportunity to play for the title. Would have been great seeing Alabama and Okie St playing a game on the field to decide that wouldn't it ? It would erase the question. I was responding in regards to the OP. The system in place hindered that from happening. It only allowed 2 teams that "Voters" chose to have an opportunity. It is corrupt and comes down to opinion. Until we have a system that everyone understands and everyone is afforded the same opportunities across the board for a championship... Then it will always be somewhat corrupt and debatable.

    We did have a chance to beat LSU and we didn't. That is why we didn't "deserve" to be in the championship. When you lose, you give up the right to feel screwed or that you "deserve" anything, and you take what the voters give you. I agree that we can do better and the system should be modified, but I am also aware that people have been getting screwed since the advent of the sport and this is the best system we have ever had. I like the idea of a plus one and could even get on board with a 8 team playoff although I think that is too many. Although College FB has its obvious flaws I honestly believe that this system is better than the playoff in the NFL. I can't think of a single team in the last 20 years that I feel was as bad of a champion as the NYG in '07 or this past year.

    bamadvm

  • bamadvm said...

    I understand what you're saying but to me it is more about the elite teams you play. OSU played nobody on the level of LSU or Arky (KSU was probably their biggest win). To me UA was so dominant last year that you could have lined up 50 8-4/9-3 teams and we would have beaten them all. We could have played ISU 100x and I don't think we would have found a way to lose to them.

    Alabama played two "elite" teams (And having Arkansas as elite is really pushing it) They lost to one of those teams. Yet they get credit for that loss.

    Oklahoma State played a tougher schedule. They also did not play a 1AA team. We can argue the merits of those SOS rankings all day, but in most years that SOS system is in teams like Alabamas favor. Its why a two loss LSU team went over a one loss Kansas team a couple years ago for instance. This particular year there was a team with a superior SOS ranking, but it didnt help them out in a couple of computers. Do you honestly think that if Alabama had Okie lites SOS from last year, that they would have been ranked below the Cowboys in any computer ranking? I certainly dont.

    AlwaysMore

  • AlwaysMore said...

    In any tournament situation, the teams that get left out do not have a legitimate argument, because those teams had their destiny in their own hands at the beginning of the season.

    Who cares if some team that cant win its conference is left out? Its the whole "The regular season means something in college football" thing.

    Its not like anyone ever loses a lot of sleep because of number 66 in college basketball gets left out. Sure for a day or so there is a lot of "Oh they so deserved it over team B" crap". But the fact of the matter is, if you want to avoid getting left out, win your conference, and dont let it fall into others hands.

    I disagree. Let's say there's an 8 team playoff. I think there's a good chance that teams # 9-15 could get hot and win it all. What If teams 9-15 have te same record as teams 7 and 8? Did human factors put teams 7 and 8 in that position? Most likely. There is no fair system to be had in college football.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • Dr.Stache said...

    I disagree. Let's say there's an 8 team playoff. I think there's a good chance that teams # 9-15 could get hot and win it all. What If teams 9-15 have te same record as teams 7 and 8? Did human factors put teams 7 and 8 in that position? Most likely. There is no fair system to be had in college football.

    I would t mind a conference winner tournament for all the marbles but how many conferences? Just the big 4? That leaves out Boise who has proven they could play with te big boys. But do you really want to let a team like Boise in? They played 10 nobodies and get a shot to win it all against teams that played much harder schedules an went through injuries from a schedule that was a true grind? If you let Boise in, it's not fair to the teams who played great schedules in tough conferences. If you don't, it's not fair to Boise who has proven that in a one big season game they can win.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • bamadvm said...

    We did have a chance to beat LSU and we didn't. That is why we didn't "deserve" to be in the championship. When you lose, you give up the right to feel screwed or that you "deserve" anything, and you take what the voters give you. I agree that we can do better and the system should be modified, but I am also aware that people have been getting screwed since the advent of the sport and this is the best system we have ever had. I like the idea of a plus one and could even get on board with a 8 team playoff although I think that is too many. Although College FB has its obvious flaws I honestly believe that this system is better than the playoff in the NFL. I can't think of a single team in the last 20 years that I feel was as bad of a champion as the NYG in '07 or this past year.

    I honestly think 6 team playoff is the right answer. This way you can pick 4 conference champions that finish in the Top 10(Finish outside the Top 10 and I don't care if you won your conference... You do not deserve a shot) and 2 teams that deserve a shot like an independent Notre Dame or Boise....Or a 1 loss team who didn't win their conference. 2 Top teams get a bye while the other 4 play the first round.

    This post was edited by SignalBama on 4/25/2012 at 9:04 PM

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    I honestly think 6 team playoff is the right answer. This way you can pick 4 conference champions that finish in the Top 10(Finish outside the Top 10 and I don't care if you won your conference... You do not deserve a shot) and 2 teams that deserve a shot like an independent Notre Dame or Boise....Or a 1 loss team who didn't win their conference. 2 Top teams get a bye while the other 4 play the first round.

    This is probably the first thing in this thread that you have said that I agree with. I think that would be a good system and a huge improvement on what we have. I could get on board with that since it doesn't have the stipulation that you must be a conference champion.

    bamadvm

  • bamadvm said...

    This is probably the first thing in this thread that you have said that I agree with. I think that would be a good system and a huge improvement on what we have. I could get on board with that since it doesn't have the stipulation that you must be a conference champion.

    We don't have to agree on everything. We all have opinions.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • Just wanted to say, that posting on this board today has been sporadic at best. I did not want anyone to think I was just ignoring their responses. Hopefully tomorrow the board will be all healed, and I can actually write back with the hope that it will actually show up.

    Until then, thanks for mostly keeping this thread clear of mindless flaming.

    AlwaysMore

  • AlwaysMore said...

    Just wanted to say, that posting on this board today has been sporadic at best. I did not want anyone to think I was just ignoring their responses. Hopefully tomorrow the board will be all healed, and I can actually write back with the hope that it will actually show up.

    Until then, thanks for mostly keeping this thread clear of mindless flaming.

    I agree. Lots of differing opinions in the thread, but its been a good, intelligent discussion with little flaming. I'm actually kinda proud of my fellow Bama fans for not getting deffensive and taking this thread as a flame as I don't believe that is how you meant it.

    bamadvm

  • AlwaysMore said...

    They created it to make money with a big time bowl. They did not create it to somehow have a more legitimate national champion.

    Both are true. Prior to BCS, there was no guarantee that #1 and #2 would play each other and therefore by having that as a final game it makes the awarding process easier than pre-BCS.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • SignalBama said...

    We all have opinions.

    Okie Lite lost to MidWest Duke U

    nuff said .....

    Crimson_Ghost

  • AlwaysMore said...

    I dont think any voted on national title is worth as much as a won on the field one, but there is a clear and easily understood disparity between the ethics of the BCS and those of the AP Poll. I will point out two years where you can see exactly how corrupt this system is. This is kind of lengthy so try to keep the conversation real, and not get too emotional about it.

    2003--The obvious one. So when the BCS came into being, they decided to use the two major polls AND some computer programs during the regular season to pick two teams to play in a bowl. (Which is still the way its done now.) However they also decided to have the FINAL vote on the actual winner of the championship to be only done by the Coaches Poll pollsters. (Which is why today, when you look at that crystal ball trophy that most people refer to as the BCS Trophy...it says quite clearly on it that its the Coaches Poll Trophy.) This system worked fine until 2003. Oklahoma screwed the pooch by losing its last game of the year, and pushing USC into the top spot (By a more than two to one margin) over the LSU Tigers and Sooners. Because the computers had control of half of the total votes (As opposed to the 1/3 they have now.) they pushed the Trojans to third in the BCS standings.

    Here is the problem with that. The BCS does not use that same system it used to keep USC out, to award its champion. At the last minute it changes its method to only have a rigged election.

    So if the old system of voting was still used, USC would have been the champion in both polls.

    If the BCS used the same system they use all season (Combined polls and rankings) USC would have ALSO been the national champion in both polls. USC was third in the computer rankings before the game. They would have been a consensus number two in five of six of the computers, (They were already number one in one computer) and a clear number one in both human polls.

    So the only way that LSU is the champ, is because there is a Soviet Union style vote where you are supposedly not allowed to act on who you actually think is the best, and instead are told who it is. (Three coaches still defied this and voted USC number one.)

    The number two obvious failure of the BCS.

    2011.

    Yep. Its the Alabama over Oklahoma State thing. But not for the whole "Alabama didnt win their conference" thing. Its actually about legitimate, obvious tampering with the computer polls to get the result that the BCS wanted.

    If you take a look at the numbers in the last BCS rankings, you will see that Alabama, is in second place in both of the human polls. (In this case the Harris and Coaches Polls) but in third place in the computer rankings. Oklahoma State has second place in the computers. Well most of them anyway.

    The issue with last year is how close it was. It was so close that the BCS had to manipulate the numbers to avoid a possible rehash of 2003. How? By having two computer rankings have Alabama as number 2 with Oklahoma State as number three. They had to have two computers give this ranking, because if it was just one, since they throw the high and low numbers out, it would not have effected the rankings. But with TWO computers, (Sagarin and Wolffe if you want to check them out.) magically putting Alabama at number two, this was exactly the amount needed to push Alabama into the game. How do I know its fixed? Because both of those computer programmers are ones that refuse to publish their algorithm yet they both had Okie lite with the tougher schedule, with no FCS schools on their record, and from the tougher conference. So how does a team, who performs as well against tougher competition get ranked behind a team with the exact same record who played a weaker schedule?

    There is one easy answer.....manipulation of rankings that do not allow anyone to see how that ranking is obtained.

    It was all done to avoid a possible 2003 repeat. If Okie lite barely beats LSU...and Alabama steamrolls Michigan, then the AP would have given their title to Alabama. So instead of playing fair, the BCS decided to avoid the controversy and change the rules.

    Did. Not. Read.

    I'm sure I can summarize it by you crying like a little bitch

    signature image

    Ichabod

  • Ichabod said...

    Did. Not. Read.

    I'm sure I can summarize it by you crying like a little bitch

    I could have told you that as soon as he came from TOS. Pretty much his MO.

    BetterOff ●

  • A lot of good and bad points made here. They have been argued to death already. My opinion is if you want a true champion, you have to have only the conference winners play in a play off. the best play the best.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Dawg E Style161

  • SignalBama said...

    Maybe, but that is not the debate here. The debate is the system and how it is inconsistent. For years the people who defended this system said "The regular season means everything". Well last year it didn't mean anything. OSU played a tougher overall schedule they lost a game in OT by 3 on the road. Alabama lost head-to-head to LSU at home by 3 in OT. Now Oklahoma St had the worse Loss but more quality wins. Therefor It showed that the results of the regular season did not determine a clear number 1 and number 2 team. It came down to the decision of human voters for Alabama to hold on over what the computers said. Don't get me wrong I think Alabama was the better of the 2 teams. I am not making a case that Okie St was better. But they had as much claim to a shot at the title as Alabama. We as fans missed a great possible game between those 2 teams because of the current system.

    Your honesty has always been refreshing. I said the exact same thing during this whole debate in Dec\Jan. Was AL the better team, quite possibly, but did they deserve to be in the game more than OSU, not in my opinion (as a neutral observer). Add in the rematch component to the game and it left me feeling blah about the game. Once there it is true that Bama showed themselves to be the better team IMO so congrats to the Tide regardless of whether they should have been there or not.

    I also think one problem that a number of us has is the perception that the current system and it's earlier iterations does always seem to have a stacked deck feel to it. For example Nebraska getting in after they were slaughtered by Colorado and failed to win their conference over either Colorado or #2 in the polls Oregon (2002 title), or of course the year that USC was actually #1 in both polls and got passed over. Hopefully at some point a legitimate playoff can be created to lessen the doubt the current system entails.

    signature image

    WTD

    ebnerblazer

  • Ichabod said...

    Incapable of Reading.

    Im sure I can summarize by blaming my lack of brainpower on everything but my crappy genetics.

    Fixed it for you.

    Glad you could stop by to announce to everyone you are an ignorant dumbass.

    AlwaysMore

  • Dawg E. Style said...

    My opinion is if you want a true champion, you have to have only the conference winners play in a play off. the best play the best.

    yeah buddy ....in 2011 we would have had "true championship" contenders in a 4 team playoff.

    1. LSU - couldnt cross the 50
    3. Okie Lite - lost to Duke, i mean Iowa State
    5. Oregon- couldnt beat LSU
    10. Wisconsin - # 10 ? well they were a conference champ .

    in the lame "just conf champs " scenario #15 Clemson (ACC Champ) just missed out . no

    Crimson_Ghost

  • Read the OP. Didn't read the rest of the thread. We won. I don't care about the rest or the excuses behind it.

    tonguetonguetonguetonguetongue

    This post was edited by VegasTide on 4/26/2012 at 5:54 PM

    VegasTide

  • Dr.Stache said...

    There is no fair system to be had in college football.

    actually there is... "sweet 16"

    * 11 D1 conferences
    - each conf champ gets a bid if they finish ranked in the top 20 or 25(sorry MAC champ ranked #38 doesnt cut it)
    - remaining balance of "16" filled with the highest ranked non conference champs .(making every game critical)

    win your conf on the field , beat someone of worth to "get ranked" , & you play your way in.

    the regular season ? it would be three times as exciting with teams in every conference fighting each and every
    week to remain "in the hunt". (through week 8 of 2011, 53 schools were within one game of their perspective conf title.
    while 4 to 6 schools max were in BCS contention.)

    one thing that would need to be done ... either every conf must have a CCG or delete them all .

    * round one and two games are college sites (highest seed at home) with the final 4 rotating bowls as the BCS does currently .

    Crimson_Ghost

  • Dr.Stache said...

    I would t mind a conference winner tournament

    no

    2011 = (1)LSU,(3)Okie Lite,(5)Oregon,(10)Wisky

    why 4 teams do nothing to prove the best ? just see 2009
    Florida finished #5 (after a loss to #1 Bama) and then blewout #3 Cincy

    2009 also proves why "conf champs only" doesnt work . Cincy ? TCU? Boise ? really ?
    none of those teams would have beaten a Tebow led Gators squad (neither would have Texas) .

    Crimson_Ghost

  • Crimson_Ghost said...

    actually there is... "sweet 16"

    * 11 D1 conferences - each conf champ gets a bid if they finish ranked in the top 20 or 25(sorry MAC champ ranked #38 doesnt cut it) - remaining balance of "16" filled with the highest ranked non conference champs .(making every game critical)

    win your conf on the field , beat someone of worth to "get ranked" , & you play your way in.

    the regular season ? it would be three times as exciting with teams in every conference fighting each and every week to remain "in the hunt". (through week 8 of 2011, 53 schools were within one game of their perspective conf title. while 4 to 6 schools max were in BCS contention.)

    one thing that would need to be done ... either every conf must have a CCG or delete them all .

    * round one and two games are college sites (highest seed at home) with the final 4 rotating bowls as the BCS does currently .

    I'd support this plan.

    signature image

    devidee

  • SignalBama said...

    I honestly think 6 team playoff is the right answer. This way you can pick 4 conference champions that finish in the Top 10(Finish outside the Top 10 and I don't care if you won your conference... You do not deserve a shot) and 2 teams that deserve a shot like an independent Notre Dame or Boise....Or a 1 loss team who didn't win their conference. 2 Top teams get a bye while the other 4 play the first round.

    Having to be a conference champion should not be a part of the equation if the goal is having the four best teams. And if you don't select the four best teams then you can't call the winner of the playoff the national champion.

    Not to mention there are almost never 6 teams that deserve a shot at the national championship. 4 is the way to go.

    Another reason to not do 6 is it takes another week and makes those teams have to play 16 games- it interferes too much with their school year and makes injuries even more likely.

    TalHawkins112

  • devidee said...

    I'd support this plan.

    Probably because it's the only way Big 10 teams have a chance.

    Anything more than 4 teams makes the regular season useless.

    Teams that start in the top 10 have virtually no chance of falling out of the playoff.

    TalHawkins112

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    Probably because it's the only way Big 10 teams have a chance.

    Anything more than 4 teams makes the regular season useless.

    Teams that start in the top 10 have virtually no chance of falling out of the playoff.

    Right. Because Ohio State has had trouble making it into championship games.

    signature image

    devidee

  • devidee said...

    Right. Because Ohio State has had trouble making it into championship games.

    That's why I said Big 10 teams.

    TalHawkins112

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports