2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

[unofan]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

You shouldn't have to win your conference title to get in the title game.

You also shouldn't have to be ranked in the top 20 in the preseason to have a legitimate shot at even reaching the title game.

So long as the BCS uses a one game format rather than a true tournament, it will be the worst of all worlds.

North America values its tournament titles over regular season ones. I'd argue that's ***-backwards and relegates the regular season to nothing more than an extended preseason (if an alien were looking down from above, they'd probably wonder why a 110-52 team isn't the champion, but an 83-79 team that managed to go 11-8 in October is), but such is life.
Europeans generally reward regular season dominance, and to the extent they have tournaments, they are wholly separate events.

The BCS is a clusterfark that frankly rewards neither in lieu of membership in a handful of conferences and, absurdly, preseason expectations. You could argue that before the first kickoff, 70 of the 130 or so BCS level schools are already mathematically eliminated from being BCS champions without ever having played a down simply based on their lack of preseason rankings and/or an inherent conference schedule that would prevent them from winning over the computers. Another 20 or so schools might as well be eliminated at that time, because the scenarios underwhich they could technically earn a title shot are so remote as to be nonexistent.

 

[J.D.]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I realize that the final poll, other than the #1 spot, is just window dressing, but Stanford at #7? They beat USC head-to-head and no way should BSU be above them with their schedule, so that should be up to #6 in both polls. I'd even argue #5 over Arkansas, since Arkankas's main achievement is losing to two top teams and Stanford can brag the same, but I guess Arkansas gets an SEC bonus.

Really? Who cares?

You shouldn't have to win your conference title to get in the title game. That's nonsense to think that 2 teams from the same conference will never be better than the teams from other conferences.

Yep. It's different when Colorado blows out Nebraska and advances to the Big 12 Title game only to see Nebraska play for the title. LSU and Alabama were the two best teams I saw all year. They played an OT game in the Regular Season and Alabama's loss was better than any other team's loss. I hated seeing the rematch, but I'm not blind where I'm gonna say it's not right or wasn't fair. It was.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Yep. It's different when Colorado blows out Nebraska and advances to the Big 12 Title game only to see Nebraska play for the title. LSU and Alabama were the two best teams I saw all year. They played an OT game in the Regular Season and Alabama's loss was better than any other team's loss. I hated seeing the rematch, but I'm not blind where I'm gonna say it's not right or wasn't fair. It was.

Fairness isn't the issue. No one's claiming the current rules were applied dishonestly, or that the required procedures weren't followed. The core complaint is that the two team playoff is hopelessly flawed as a system. This year's undesirable rematch simply provides an example of the current system's flaws.

Yes, certain value judgments are also being called into question. Your best loss tiebreaker provides an example. As far as I know, poll voters have every "right" to use that to break ties. But that doesn't necessarily make it wise or ideal. If I were to rank the potential tiebreaking criteria, best loss would be near the bottom of my list. But regardless of which view is best, the point is fair game for debate.

 

[J.D.]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Actually, IMO, the matchup this year was an example of the system working. It gave us the two best teams.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Understood; and I assumed that was your opinion from your previous post. Still, there is a basic philosophical difference at work here.

Neither of us is alone in our views, but consider: If 2011 was such an unqualified success, why were the TV ratings low? And why are the BCS powers-that-be considering major changes to the system if it "worked well" in the season just completed?

 

[J.D.]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Trust me, I want a playoff as much as anyone. Year by year I find myself less interested in the big bowl games. This year, my interest was definitely at an all time low. All I'm saying is that the system worked in giving us the two best teams play for the title. You're simply arguing something different...you want a different system. So do I.

 

[XYZ]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

All I'm saying is that the system worked in giving us the two best teams play for the title.

Maybe the NFL should just use this system. The Green Bay-New Orleans Super Bowl will be great!

More to your point: It's flawed. While a claim that LSU and Alabama were the "most deserving" teams based on a hideously small and heterogeneous sample size can at least be defended, a downright claim they were the "two best teams" is based on nothing but speculation.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Neither of us is alone in our views, but consider: If 2011 was such an unqualified success, why were the TV ratings low?

Because 5/6ths of the fans of BCS conferences have sour grapes? I could have told you that the ratings would be low before the rematch was even announced - especially considering the low-scoring nature of the first meeting.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Because 5/6ths of the fans of BCS conferences have sour grapes? I could have told you that the ratings would be low before the rematch was even announced - especially considering the low-scoring nature of the first meeting.

Ratings weren't just down for the championship game though. They were down pretty much across the board.

 

[J.D.]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Maybe the NFL should just use this system. The Green Bay-New Orleans Super Bowl will be great!

More to your point: It's flawed. While a claim that LSU and Alabama were the "most deserving" teams based on a hideously small and heterogeneous sample size can at least be defended, a downright claim they were the "two best teams" is based on nothing but speculation.

Again, I don't like the system. I was just giving my opinion that I think the two best teams were in the title game.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Because 5/6ths of the fans of BCS conferences have sour grapes?

I dissent. If you lose a game, then blame the officiating or the weather, that might fairly be characterized as sour grapes. But when someone is simply asking for the opportunity to compete, I don't think the phrase applies.

Also, those objecting to this year's rematch aren't fixating on that single case. Speaking for myself: Ohio State has done very well under the BCS system. I criticize the system because I truly believe it hasn't stood the test of time for college football as a whole. Change may very well run counter to my self interest.

As for Oklahoma State, I do object to their exclusion from this year's title game. Had they been selected, I would have watched the game and rooted for the "other" OSU. But I have no direct connection to Okla. State. I've never even been to Stillwater. While I do believe they were wrongly excluded, that part of the conversation isn't an emotional issue for me. My guess is that most of the "5/6ths" are in the same boat.

IMHO, none of the above constitutes sour grapes.

I could have told you that the ratings would be low before the rematch was even announced - especially considering the low-scoring nature of the first meeting.

If you had your finger on the pulse early on, that's fine. But you haven't resolved the issue. The question is whether a different match-up would have done better. Now I certainly understand that TV ratings stem from a multitude of factors. But I sincerely believe that an Oklahoma State/LSU final would have drawn higher numbers than the game that was actually played.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Trust me, I want a playoff as much as anyone. Year by year I find myself less interested in the big bowl games. This year, my interest was definitely at an all time low.

I surmise your lack of interest stems from how we came to the end of it all. Most definitely by the result of the fact we'd already been there and done that. Had Bama-LSU made it to the end via way of at least a 4-team playoff the build-up would have been much greater.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I dissent. If you lose a game, then blame the officiating or the weather, that might fairly be characterized as sour grapes. But when someone is simply asking for the opportunity to compete, I don't think the phrase applies.

It definitely applies. You didn't get what you wanted (LSU-OSU), so you declare the whole system rotten (i.e. sour).

If you had your finger on the pulse early on, that's fine. But you haven't resolved the issue. The question is whether a different match-up would have done better. Now I certainly understand that TV ratings stem from a multitude of factors. But I sincerely believe that an Oklahoma State/LSU final would have drawn higher numbers than the game that was actually played.

I'm not sure why you seem to think i would disagree with this. I think almost any inter-conference matchup would have had better ratings - hence why it was so easy to predict that the rematch would have poor ratings. Isn't it nice that the almighty dollar actually *didn't* dictate things for a change? That they selected the two best teams rather than going for a ratings grab?

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

You think that ESPN's multi-billion dollar deal with the SEC had nothing to do with them pushing for a rematch as soon as Alabama's kick sailed wide on November 5th? How.....quaint.

The only conference that ESPN has more influence with would probably be the ACC. There, they just tell them who to pick off of the Big East because the football is atrocious.

 

[XYZ]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Again, I don't like the system. I was just giving my opinion that I think the two best teams were in the title game.

Oh, I know, and your opinion could be right. But the problem lies in the fact you used your opinion that those were the best two teams as basis for a belief that the system worked. That's merely speculation.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

It definitely applies. You didn't get what you wanted (LSU-OSU), so you declare the whole system rotten (i.e. sour).

Pretty disappointing response. I have no idea why someone would mischaracterize my position in this way. I've reread my posts, and have said nothing deserving of your insult.

To be more specific, I've been very clear that what I'm opposed to is the intra-conference rematch. I have no emotional investment whatsoever in Oklahoma State or anybody else that plausibly could have been invited to this year's title game. Yes, my honest opinion is that LSU and Oklahoma State were the two most qualified conference champs. But if the poll voters had come up with a different pair of champs, I still would have watched the game.

As it was, I boycotted the broadcast. It wasn't easy to stick to the boycott. I've followed college football pretty much all my life, and I thoroughly enjoy the games. To the best of my recollection, I've tuned in to every previous BCS title game. Several times during the LSU/'Bama game I was tempted to sneak a peak. But with each passing year I've become increasingly dissatisfied with the two team playoff format. This year things just went too far astray for me.

My perception is that the large majority of those opposing the two game playoff are similarly situated. Specific viewpoints are all over the board, but very few of them are based on illegitimate (i.e. sour) motivations. You see widespread sour grapes; I just don't see it. Postings on some boards may lack civility, but that's a separate problem. Fortunately USCHO is better than most in this regard.

I'm not sure why you seem to think i would disagree with this. I think almost any inter-conference matchup would have had better ratings - hence why it was so easy to predict that the rematch would have poor ratings. Isn't it nice that the almighty dollar actually *didn't* dictate things for a change? That they selected the two best teams rather than going for a ratings grab?

I hadn't looked at it exactly this way, and that is worth thinking about. The idea that poor ratings proves all is well is creative, at the very least! But my first reaction is that for this conversation, it's a non-issue. As I observed several posts ago, no one is suggesting that the current rules were dishonestly applied. The debate concerns the format itself, and whether it should be changed. Granted, there's little doubt the selection process has been designed to produce a highly rated broadcast. But I can't recall any particular year that the broadcaster loudly objected to the BCS-generated match-up. Usually those hoping for higher ratings take a more forward looking approach...

The real problem can be summarized this way: Over the tortured history of the two team playoff, the rules have been repeatedly tweaked. The current cure du jour is to give extra weight to the human polls. The idea is that wise humans, exercising common sense, can step in and correct the errors made by the silly computers. Computer formulas, of course, had previously been a fashionable safeguard against biased voting by corrupt humans. The pattern repeats itself, over and over again. A year or two goes by, there's another crisis, and another cure. Patch one hole in the dam, and another leak springs up elsewhere in the structure.

Why does this happen? Are the BCS decision-makers trying to whip up controversy to create interest? Are they corrupt? Or are they merely fools? My answer is none of the above. I believe that people running the BCS have genuinely tried to create a successful two team playoff. But after more than a decade of effort, the whole enterprise appears to be a mission impossible. The tweaks haven't worked; we need an overhaul. It's time to move on to a format with greater potential for success.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

On further reflection: I dunno. It's not pleasant to have one's motivation questioned. But maybe that part of the conversation isn't even relevant.

Lots of us would like to see the current BCS system replaced. As a group, maybe we love college football and genuinely want what's best. Or, maybe we're all just self-interested scum. But in the end, either the ideas have merit or they don't.

I'll stop short of deleting it, but I probably shouldn't have bothered with the last post.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Don't misunderstand me - I would dearly love to see an 8 or even 4-team playoff, along with probably nearly all of the 24 million people who did tune in to watch the title game. What fan wouldn't prefer more than 2 teams in the playoffs?

The thing is that ever since the BCS title game was created in 2006, there has always been a possibility of an intra-conference matchup. It's an inherent part of a 2-team playoff - there's always a chance that the two "best" teams (however that is defined year-to-year) could end up being in the same conference. So when you say that you would have been happy to watch other matchups this year but not an intra-conference one, then your decision about whether to watch the game is based on the *outcome* of the process, and not on the integrity of the process. The process had no less (or more) "integrity" this year than it has had any other year; the only difference was the outcome.

A principled stand would be not to watch *any* matchup in a 2-team playoff; otherwise you're just complaining because you didn't get a matchup you preferred. IMHO. If the same system gives us an Ohio State-Notre Dame matchup in the title game next year, would you choose to watch the game?

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

Don't misunderstand me - I would dearly love to see an 8 or even 4-team playoff, along with probably nearly all of the 24 million people who did tune in to watch the title game. What fan wouldn't prefer more than 2 teams in the playoffs?

The thing is that ever since the BCS title game was created in 2006, there has always been a possibility of an intra-conference matchup. It's an inherent part of a 2-team playoff - there's always a chance that the two "best" teams (however that is defined year-to-year) could end up being in the same conference.

This conversation has been going on for a while; maybe you joined in the middle. But my starting point was the principle proposed by alfablue: If the number of BCS conference champs > the number of playoff berths, then the playoff field should be limited to conference champs. I strongly endorsed alfablue's post, and still feel the same way. I fully understand that we're proposing a change to the status quo.

So when you say that you would have been happy to watch other matchups this year but not an intra-conference one, then your decision about whether to watch the game is based on the *outcome* of the process, and not on the integrity of the process. The process had no less (or more) "integrity" this year than it has had any other year; the only difference was the outcome.

Perhaps I should have been boycotting during the "harmless error" years, but that's not self-evident. For one thing, my views on the BCS have evolved. Each year provides a new case. I also consider things I read on this Board. A book called Death to the BCS was published a couple of years ago. That was a good read and probably influences my thinking to some extent. Considering new data and new arguments isn't being hypocritical, it's having an open mind.

As I type, I can't recall if I actually used the word "integrity" in any of my previous posts. But what I've come to believe is that the two team playoff is hopelessly flawed. That's distinctly different from saying the process is dishonest, as I've mentioned at least twice previously.

Overall, I've had my doubts about the BCS for a long time. Quite honestly I've wondered about the wisdom of system since the very beginning (1998?), not just 2006. But this year was a tipping point for me. I went from wishing for something different to concluding that the two team playoff needs to go. Was this year's outcome relevant to my shift? Of course. But all of the other evidence and arguments were relevant as well.

A principled stand would be not to watch *any* matchup in a 2-team playoff; otherwise you're just complaining because you didn't get a matchup you preferred. IMHO.

Certainly you've identified a principled stand, but it's not the only principled stand possible. I also believe that the position you've framed above is a false dilemma.

At this point, it's important to remember we're talking about television programming here, not apartheid in South Africa. Suppose a TV critic alerts me that my favorite sitcom is about to air an episode I may find objectionable. Skipping the episode in question and rejoining the series the following week strikes me as a reasonable course of action, not an ethical slip. Sure, it depends on what the objectionable item is. But in most cases viewing choices will be best characterized as a matter of consumer choice, not a matter of life and death.

How does the BCS title game fit into that dichotomy? Certainly the game is more important than the sitcom episode. But I'd also say that both game and the sitcom clearly land on the consumer choice side of the ledger. That being the case, rejecting some, but not all, of a package of programs may be viewed as a response calibrated to the particular issue hand. The blunt instrument of total boycott may actually be an inappropriate overreaction.

If the same system gives us an Ohio State-Notre Dame matchup in the title game next year, would you choose to watch the game?

I really want to believe that this isn't the mean-spirited dig it appears to be. In case it actually slipped your mind, Ohio State isn't eligible for post-season play next year.

Be that as is may, I'll soldier on with my reply. I'll admit right up front it's pragmatic rather than principled. But if the BCS continues on as is, I may choose to watch the title game if I have a rooting interest, otherwise not. Another possibility is that I'll decide that boycotting is futile, and tune in regardless of the match-up. Either of those choices would constitute following self-interest rather than pursuing the greater good. But with any luck, both of those options will become moot. An expansion to a four team playoff looks like a serious possibility. Let's hope.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2011 College Football Part II: Bowls, The Rematch, and Recruiting >Tebow

I think a 6 team playoff with 2 byes would suffice.