2008 NCAA Football - Page 23

Kevin · #**331** 12-01-2008, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Bah. But whatever, I guess. We should have taken care of business in Lubbock.

Or paid off a few more voters.

I keed... I keed.

On a more serious note, I think this will be good for college football. Not necessarily because this decision was correct. That's debatable either way. Both teams can make compelling points (and no, I don't think head to head is dispositive in a three-way tie, but I'm an Oklahoma fan, so you shouldn't be shocked). Why I think this is good for football is that from now on, athletic directors in big conferences will be more motivated to schedule high-caliber OOC games. Beating Big East champion, Cincinnati and 10-win TCU was a big part of what OU in the championship game over Texas.

Also, considering the movement in the human polls (how do you drop in the polls after beating the No.12 team by 20 at their house?), I think all votes should be public every week.

CrackerBarrel · #**332** 12-01-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or paid off a few more voters.

I keed... I keed.

On a more serious note, I think this will be good for college football. Not necessarily because this decision was correct. That's debatable either way. Both teams can make compelling points (and no, I don't think head to head is dispositive in a three-way tie, but I'm an Oklahoma fan, so you shouldn't be shocked). Why I think this is good for football is that from now on, athletic directors in big conferences will be more motivated to schedule high-caliber OOC games. Beating Big East champion, Cincinnati and 10-win TCU was a big part of what OU in the championship game over Texas.

Also, considering the movement in the human polls (how do you drop in the polls after beating the No.12 team by 20 at their house?), I think all votes should be public every week.

It won't motivate teams to schedule better OOC games (and if that was the effect it would only occur in the Big XII since the SEC and ACC have the tiebreaker set up differently and the Big10, BigEast and Pac10 lack conference championship games), it will end up that after the season the Big XII will adopt the SEC version of that tie breaker where it is BCS standing, but if the top two teams are within 5 positions of each other than the head-to-head matchup between those two teams is dispositive.

Kevin · #**333** 12-01-2008, 12:26 PM

And UT fans will squeal like pigs under a gate when that policy someday excludes them from a CCG

IMHO, the BCS standings shouldn't be used at all. I actually thought Mike Leach had the best idea for determining the winner -- go by the graduation rate.

But if you want to be even more fair, I'd take the points for v. points against of all common opponents (the highest difference wins) before looking at something as arbitrary as BCS standings.

The fact that OU went on the road to the No. 12 team in the country and beat them on their own field and then was dropped in the polling is just ridiculous.

At any rate, UT is due a screwing after what Mack and his campaigning did to Cal in 2004. If nothing else, there's a solid karma argument to be made.

At any rate, how would you feel about this policy:

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
If three or more teams are tied, Texas wins.
If Texas is not one of the three teams tied, Texas wins.
If one or both of the divisional winners lost to Texas at some point during the season, Texas wins.
If three teams are tied, but Texas beat the North winner, Texas win

breathesgelatin · #**334** 12-01-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

At any rate, how would you feel about this policy:

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
If three or more teams are tied, Texas wins.
If Texas is not one of the three teams tied, Texas wins.
If one or both of the divisional winners lost to Texas at some point during the season, Texas wins.
If three teams are tied, but Texas beat the North winner, Texas win

Sounds good to me!

I also kid.

Only slightly.

srmom · #**335** 12-01-2008, 01:43 PM

HAHA! Yes, I'd go for that scenario. Kidding.

It ended up as I suspected, and I'm sure the OU - SEC champ (fingers crossed for Florida) game will be great.

But, this debacle has certainly given fodder to the sportscasters to lobby for a playoff system. Everyone of them are calling foul (and they would have done so if OU had been excluded). They were just waiting for this kind of controversy...

As for me, it saves me thousands of dollars because I was going to spring for tickets and airfare for the whole family if it was UT/Florida. There is a silver lining!!

PhiGam · #**336** 12-01-2008, 02:16 PM

I'm a huge Alabama fan this week.

srmom · #**337** 12-01-2008, 03:48 PM

Oh, hush you!!

GO GATORS!!!

#**338** 12-01-2008, 06:52 PM

Ruh roh, Penn State mascot arrested on DUI, may miss Rose Bowl

Benzgirl · #**339** 12-01-2008, 09:00 PM

^^^^Sorry Nittany, I had to laugh too.

awkward1 · #**340** 12-01-2008, 10:41 PM

I found this video on espn.com that gives a quick look at the people behind the rankings. I found it interesting that they do indeed take strength of schedule into consideration although sometimes it seems like they don't.

Wouldn't it be great if every conference had the depth and strength that the Big 12 has this year? UGA -v- Hawaii last year was a joke. While Hawaii may have been the champions of their conference, they were not in the same league as UGA. I feel the same way about Utah and Boise State this year. It looks like Boise may face either Wake Forest or Maryland, both formidable opponents. Utah faces a more difficult opponent in one of the leading SEC or Big 12 Teams. Utah has only faced two opponents of note this season, Oregon State and TCU. I just don't see Utah as being on the same level as UT, Bama, or UF and I foresee them getting blown out of the water.

lyrelyre · #**341** 12-05-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

it will end up that after the season the Big XII will adopt the SEC version of that tie breaker where it is BCS standing, but if the top two teams are within 5 positions of each other than the head-to-head matchup between those two teams is dispositive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

IMHO, the BCS standings shouldn't be used at all.

It seems natural to me that a conference would want the team with the highest BCS standing to play in its conference championship simply because it increases the chances of a team from that conference playing in the national championship game. I know this year a win by either Texas or Oklahoma would likely have resulted in a Big XII team in the national championship; however, a conference cannot always count on having two (2) teams with such high BCS rankings. I think it could be a mistake for the Big XII to change the tiebreaker system. Sometimes even a difference of only five (5) positions would result in the conference sending the lower BCS ranked team to its conference championship; thus, potentially prohibiting the higher BCS ranked team’s appearances in a national championship game.

There really isn’t a perfect solution.

Kevin · #**342** 12-05-2008, 04:21 PM

Another 3-way tie is unlikely.

CrackerBarrel · #**343** 12-05-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

It seems natural to me that a conference would want the team with the highest BCS standing to play in its conference championship simply because it increases the chances of a team from that conference playing in the national championship game. I know this year a win by either Texas or Oklahoma would likely have resulted in a Big XII team in the national championship; however, a conference cannot always count on having two (2) teams with such high BCS rankings. I think it could be a mistake for the Big XII to change the tiebreaker system. Sometimes even a difference of only five (5) positions would result in the conference sending the lower BCS ranked team to its conference championship; thus, potentially prohibiting the higher BCS ranked team’s appearances in a national championship game.

There really isn’t a perfect solution.

It isn't the conference championship game's job to send a team to the national championship game, it's their job to crown the conference champion in the fairest way possible.

And yeah, I think another 3 way tie isn't likely for a while again anyways, particularly since if I had to guess Leach will be at Auburn next season.

Munchkin03 · #**344** 12-05-2008, 05:30 PM

You guys, I'm so pumped for tomorrow.

My peeps and I are setting up a party at one of the bars here that call itself an "official" outpost of Gator Nation. My orange and blue is out and ready. I even wore an orange and blue cardigan on Tuesday. It's cuter than it sounds.

For someone who didn't even go to UF, I love those Gators!

lyrelyre · #**345** 12-05-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

It isn't the conference championship game's job to send a team to the national championship game, it's their job to crown the conference champion in the fairest way possible.

And yeah, I think another 3 way tie isn't likely for a while again anyways, particularly since if I had to guess Leach will be at Auburn next season.

I agree that another three (3) way tie is unlikely.

However, considering the money, both for the school and the conference, at stake when appearing in a national championship game, I cannot agree that the conference championship game shouldn't be (and isn't) somewhat calculated to attempt to send a team to the national championship game.