What-ifs? No sir. Let me explain it to you very slowly. Texas......beat.......OU.....by.....10.......points.....on......a.....neutral.....field. Not would have, not could have, not maybe, not possibly. DID. They played that game on a neutral field and WON. As in scored more points than OU. Everything that OU did, Texas did better. Texas was the winner. OU was the loser. It happened ON THE FIELD. Not off. ON THE FIELD. On NATIONAL TV. I watched the entire game. Texas WON. They outscored OU by 10 points. In fact since you apparently are unaware that this game even took place, I'll include the Box Score for you http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=282850201 Texas outscored them in every quarter but 1 had more total yards more 1st downs dominated time of possession forced 2 turnovers and lost none comitted fewer penalties oh, and SCORED MORE POINTS There is no what-ifs. It freaking happened. Everyone watched it happen. Not a guess or a prediction. It is a historical fact that Texas BEAT (as in scored more points) than the team that "earned" it on the field. OU won in the computers, not on the field. I watched a 41-10 game last year. You're trying to convince me that the team with 10 belongs in the playoffs while the team with 41 should stay home. Sorry, but I disagree. Should have the BEST field, not most diverse. No biggie? Um, it's the playoffs. Every game should be a biggie. Which is why you let in the BEST teams. Whether they win their conference or not. If Texas is one of the top (insert # of playoff teams), they get in. If Boise ain't one of the top (insert # of playoff teams), they stay home. The basketball tournament doesn't tell a 2 seed to stay home like you're trying to do. Wonder why is that? Could it be because they want THE BEST TEAMS IN THE FIELD? Strange concept isn't it? You're right. Instead of putting together a field of the best teams, let's see if once or twice a century we can get a Cinderella team. No reason to actually allow the best teams in when we can schedule a bunch of "cakewalks" and blow outs purely for the sake of diversity. We already let the computers take away the importance of head to head match-ups. Might as well let them phuck up a playoff system as well. OU couldn't stop Texas. leaving half of the consensus top 4 home makes your playoffs a lot less legitimate than leaving home #10. a playoff in general will destroy the traditional bowls and regular season.
Hopefully I'll be able to shorten this response - I've been running long. So you have a problem with the way the Big 12 chooses its champion? I don't. Each game is different. OU lost to Texas, but Texas lost to Texas Tech. I'd say losing to Texas is more excusable. Regardless, I say let the Big 12 determine their champion as they see fit. Now, in the case of Kansas St in 2003, I'd have still chosen OU, I believe, because Kansas St was not in the top 10 and OU was the highest rated Big 12 team. You seem to forget that Texas Tech beat Texas and that the Big 12 South had a 3 way tie for first, if I'm not mistaken. There can be only one team representing the South in the Big 12 championship game. Or we could go back to the days where there were no championship games, which I'd rather not do. If we could predict winners of games, we'd never need to play them. There was no way of knowing before hand if Hawaii could stand their own against Georgia. Based on the entirety of the regular season, Hawaii was more qualified, not strictly based on potential but based on that and the achievements of their season. Assumptions and prejudices are off-the-field phenomena and should not be the sole decider of which teams play for a NC and which teams have no shot. And Georgia would not stay home, they'd still go to a lucrative bowl. So you want the top 4 to 8 teams? It wouldn't bother you to have a repeat NC with Michigan and Ohio St? It wouldn't bother you to give Alabama a second chance? This would make meaningless championship games a common occurance. It would deflate key regular season battles into something more NFL-esque. That would be a travesty, IMO. The regular season has to count for something. If a team loses, no biggie. That is the way games go. There is no way to know that Boise St or Utah doesn't field a competitive team without letting them prove it on the field. Rating systems have an inherent flaw; one good team can falsely inflate the ratings of that team's opponents. Diversity serves to counter than flaw in rating systems. We could go strictly to opinon polls, but they probably miss the mark more often than computer rankings do based on hype, exposure, bias, etc. So we should use a combination, but we shouldn't ignore the limitations of any ranking system. This is not true. If a playoff is well designed it will compliment the regular season and bring it to a natural close. The secondary bowls can coexist if the playoff if a good blend of inclusiveness and exclusivity is adopted. OK, I hear you and agree that is important. I expect you've written a fiery letter to the Big 12 commissioner. So I'm guessing you'd have sent the bonghorns to play Missouri. Or would you be clammoring for the gooners had they been left out? PS: short post... FAIL!
could care less about how the Big XII chooses their champ. I do however have a problem with leaving top 5 teams out of a playoff in favor of a team ranked as far down as 9 or 10. Let me get this straight: 2003 OU is #3 in the polls, did not win Big 12, but get into playoffs 2008 UT is #3 in the polls, did not win Big 12, but do NOT get into playoffs Sounds like you should change your avatar . Nothing to do with who the Big XII champ is. Both OU and Texas belong if there is a playoff this year. you're right, that 21 point spread Vegas put out there was waaaaaaay freaking low. Everyone and their brother predicted a bloodbath, and they got one. Dear Mr. Richt, You are the head coach of a top 5 team. People are even saying that your team is playing better than anyone in the country right now. Some experts are even saying you should be in the National Championship game. However, we feel that a team ranked 5 spots behind you is much more deserving. They have played a daunting schedule that included a whopping 1 team from a BCS conference (4-9 Washington BTW). I'm sure you and the rest of America will completely understand how their accomplishment warrants inclusion much more than the turd y'all have laid this year. P.S. as a consolation prize, we're sending you to beautiful Shreveport, Louisiana for the whateverthehellit'scalledthisyear Bowl. Congratulations!! I don't want any playoffs at all. But if we do have them, I want the BEST field available regardless of conference affiliation. If we end up with a rematch, so be it. contact the NCAA. Tell them that instead of allowing Duke into March Madness, we'd like to see if Nicholls State can compete. There is no way of knowing unless we put them into the tournament and let them decide it on the field. If they lose in a disgusting blowout and people change the channel before half, no biggie. That is the way games go. Diversity for the sake of Diversity is overrated doubtful at best no letters to Big XII. Who wins that conference is of little importance to me. But yes, I do think UT should have gone to the title game. Use the BCS as a tie-breaker if necessary. However, if you have two teams within ___ number of places of each other (SEC uses 5 which may be a bit much), revert back to head to head between those 2 teams. These two teams were unbelievably close .040 points in the BCS is minute The human polls were split (one had UT higher, the other OU) So when it's that close, revert back to what happened on the field, meaning UT wins the South. me too
This is where you stand : no playoff : playoff with top teams, regardless of conference affiliation I want a playoff, so we disagree fundamentally. Allowing Auburn to not play for the NC in 2004 was terrible. If we have a playoff, you want the top x teams. That would be better than we currently have as long as we pick a relatively small number. I'd probably go with 4 to start and move to 6. The problems I have with this type of playoff are : the value of conference championships is reduced : rematches that in some cases almost totally negate key regular season games : no solace for nonBCS teams : rating inadequacies are not accounted for by a diverse selection of teams : fewer conferences will be satiated : the secondary bowls will suffer a bit more If we'd adopt a top x team playoff, I doubt there would be much argument if Texas and Alabama were let in. Some would argue against the rematch potentials like I have, but I wouldn't mind as much as Auburn getting left out in 2004. Many would wonder why a team like Boise St (and perhaps Utah) isn't being included in the quest for a NC. NonBCS teams face inherent hurdles in ratings as they can't simply join the SEC as they desire; they are stuck in the MWC conference or worse, at no fault of their own. I see the potential lack of diversity as a problem as well, from a statistical/rating standpoint, from a fairness standpoint, and from the standpoint of major BCS conferences likely being snubbed quite regularly. Would it be a problem if 6 got in over 5? How accurate do you believe rating systems are? Do you believe there are inherent limitations to the best rating systems? Funny. Don't much care for Stoops, though. The difference is that in 2008 the Big 12 is represented by a higher rated team. Same as Boise St vs Oklahoma, Utah vs WVU, ULM vs Alabama, Appalachian St vs Michigan. If we knew the outcomes of games before they happened, why play them? Congratulations on your success this season. As you did not win your conference, and as your conference is being represented by LSU in the NC playoff, please accept this invitation to *a prestigious secondary bowl*. Some are saying you belong in the NC playoff, however, your conference is already represented by LSU. A small but diverse playoff has been adopted because it best addresses a multitude of issues. No one can say Georgia didn't have an opportunity on the field the way teams like Auburn and Boise St in past haven't. Please win your conference next season and quit yer bitchin'. Be real man. I'm not advocating the inclusion of North Texas when they win the Sun Belt. A small playoff would help bowls, as the current BCS setup consumes 10 teams. Bigger teams would also be available for secondary bowls using my configuration, allowing all bowls better and more traditionally ideal matchups. Well, I think you have an argument there. The question I have is where does Texas Tech fit into that picture?
Yes, AU getting snubbed in '04 was pretty sh!tty (P.S. Utah and Boise were both unbeaten that year too, why didn't you bring them up?). So was USC snubbing in '03. I have never said our current system was perfect. As far as rematches go, they're not uncommon in conference championshp games and no one complains that they rendered the regular season game meaningless. Instead of scheduling 1-AA Weber State (like Utah did this year) or 1-AA Idaho State (like Boise did this year) schedule a mid tier BCS school. Show the country that you can compete with the big dogs and win them consistently. When you start behind the pack like these small schools do, you cannot afford to schedule 1-AA teams. Beating Weber State 12,232-0 is not going to catch anyone's attention or raise your value to the pollsters. However, playing and beating someone like Baylor or Arizona, Minnesota, etc. looks a bit better. Being diverse simply for the sake of diversity is wrong on every level of life. Example: You own your own business. You have 6 applicants for 3 job openings. 2 purple guys from Mars are far and away the 2 best applicants. So they get 2 jobs. 1 opening left. Of the 4 guys left, 1 purple guy from Mars, 1 is a green feller from Jupiter, and 1 a orange dude from California. The best of the remainding apps easily belongs to the purple guy. Are you going to hire the dude from Jupiter simply for the sake of diversity. Or are you going to go with the best guy for the job? If you said the guy from Jupiter BECAUSE he is from Jupiter, you are no better off than the guy who refuses to hire people from Jupite regardless of how good they are. Of course there are limitations with the rankings. And no matter who gets left out, people are going to be pissed. Most of the top 10 all finish with the same record or within a game of each other. So someone is getting shafted no matter what. And yes, I do think leaving out team 5 in a 4 team playoff is everybit as bad (if not worse) than leaving out team 3 in a 2 team playoff. How do you tell a BCS school that you're taking every one loss BCS team, except them? Both finished #3 and did not win their conference. The names of the 2 teams finishing above them should be 100000% irrelevant to their playoff fate. if 12-1 ; # 3 in polls ; not conf champs gets you in in '03 then 12-1 ; # 3 in polls ; not conf champs gets you in in '08 upsets do happen. They are the exception, not the rule. Which is why we make a big deal about them when they happen. We can't schedule these games merely on the hope that they MIGHT happen again. P.S. and Phuck You! we want to be diverse instead of right, which is another reason you don't get to play. :hihi: And instead of raking in the $4 million that a 2nd BCS (from same conf) will get you, you'll have to settle for a quarter of that over in the Outback. No hard feelings that we just screwed you out of $3 million. I'm sure you'll understand. Maybe not, but you're still kicking Duke out of the tourney even though they actually earned a spot in it. They only take up 4 Bowls for the BCS. An 8 team playoff would do that in the 1st round Then 2 more in second round Then another in final round You just took the top 7 Bowls out of the pool. Which is why I said using the BCS as last option If the top 2 are within X number of spots, revert to head to head. Some years it will come to that, some years it won't.
Yet you are anti-playoff? I didn't bring up Utah and Boise St, but I didn't forget about them either. I wouldn't say no one complains, and regional issues are a different story. We can't have a regional playoff. Do you know the circumstances that led teams to schedule Weber St or Idaho St? We can't dictate schedules, all we can deal with is final rankings. I believe teams are penalized for scheduling too many 1aa teams in a 4 year period; I also believe that the BCS ratings should be more strongly affected by strength of schedule. But if a nonBCS team can schedule a 1AA team and still make the rating, I believe they should still be eligible. Scheduling is far from an exact science, a team that may be good now may suck in the future. BCS schools may not want to schedule certain nonBCS schools that will pose any real competition. You're pretty much saying that BCS teams should get second, and sometimes third chances, while nonBCS teams should get no chance. I simply do not understand that logic. All the while nonBCS teams have to jump through hurdles and don't have a realistic means to be rated in the top four of all teams unless enough BCS teams screw up and they have the most perfect season. We'd require nonBCS schools to be the team of a decade or more to make the playoff, which is too much to ask IMO. Diversity serves a number of purposes, both theoretically sound and politically expedient, such as reducing the number of errors that come from using imperfect rating systems and allowing more conferences to compete in the NC playoff. There is also value in diversity by bringing in a variety of viewpoints and experiences. Style of play and attitude varies by conference and can bring more spice to a playoff. I'd rather Alabama 2008 get left out than Auburn 2004. There was no doubt Auburn deserved to play for the NC. Not as good a case can be made for Alabama. By laying out the criteria before hand, such as putting a ceiling on permitted rankings, and by not taking more than 1 team per conference. It isn't the name of the teams in front of them, it is the conference of the teams in front of them. Oklahoma is ahead of Texas now, Kansas St was far behind the highest rated Big 12 team (Oklahoma) in 2003. I find it surprising that you put no stock in conference championships. These games wouldn't be scheduled merely in the hope that upsets might happen, they'd be scheduled because nonBCS teams have earned a chance to play for the NC. If you don't have a problem with a number 10 BCS team getting in, you shouldn't have a problem with a number 10 nonBCS team getting in. I'd consider different requirements for BCS and nonBCS schools, but I imagine we're better off having 1 set of requirements that apply to all. And again, STOP WHINING! You had your chance on the field and fumbled. Leaving you out of a playoff is what is best for college football and is nothing personal. You just suck a little harder than you should. If Duke hasn't earned their spot, fug 'em. Nothing pleased me more than when LSU knocked them out of the playoffs a few years back. WRONG! I'm not really calling for an 8 team playoff, more for a flexible 2-8 team playoff... but that is beyond the scope of argument, at this time. Even with 8 teams, the first quarter-final round would be held at the home of the higher seeded team. The semi-final round would be held at two of the BCS bowls, and the championship game would be held at a third BCS bowls. Every fourth year, a BCS bowl would host a traditional secondary bowl, with BCS bowls rotating similar to the way they do now. That's three bowl games, and from a maximum of 10 to a minimum of 8. The smaller the playoff, the sweeter and more traditional the secondary bowls would be. What if the top 3 are within X number of spots?
why you scheduled a 1AA school is completely irrelevant. THAT you scheduled one is the important part. it cost Auburn in '04 and should cost whoever else schedules them in the future. No, I'm telling you to remove the name off the side of the helmet. BCS, non BCS, whatever. Give me the top teams regardless of conference. If the top 4 teams are all in one conference, so be it. Try to follow me on this one Forced diversity is every bit as bad as an intentional lack of diversity. If a non BCS team climbs the ladder aand cracks the playoff field on their own, they're in. No special permits, not kicking a better team out to let the little guy play, nothing. You eran it, you're in. You don't, you're out. '04 Auburn had an identical record to the 2 teams that got to play '08 Alabama has an identical record to the two teams that get to play. yep, I can see the differences. so we weaken the playoff field. yep that makes sense. no reason to put together the strongest field possible.
It shouldn't have cost Auburn a chance to play for the NC. Totally disagree. I'm trying to eliminate repeats that reduce the importance of regular season games. I'm trying to circumvent limitations in rating systems - you seem to believe rating systems are flawless. I'm trying to figure a way to give all teams the same criteria. I can see the differences, I'm not so sure you can. The best teams aren't simply determined by their records or SOS, but also by their accomplishments, particularly relative to other top teams. We need an efficient NC playoff, not a repeat of the regular season. So you approve of the shafting of Auburn in 2004 and USC and 2003 and numerous other schools since the start of the BCS (and beyond)?
If you don't want it to happen, don't schedule a cupcake. Totally disagree. um not sure what part of I don't think the current system is perfect you missed, but I'll say it again. The polling system is not perfect or flawless. I guess you also missed the part where I said USC should have benn in the title game.
And yet you want to use it, exclusively, to determine which teams would play for the NC? When there are three teams and only two positions, then... what?
