Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Dec 6, 2009 5:17pm
Running the table in the Big 12 trumps running it in the Big East,WAC and Mountain West. Sorry but Texas deserves the NC Game.
Get over it.
Get over it.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Dec 6, 2009 5:19pm
Agreed.
(I'm gonna go throw up now after agreeing with Skyhook)
(I'm gonna go throw up now after agreeing with Skyhook)
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Dec 6, 2009 5:22pm
No other NCAA or major professional sport uses computers to determine its champion.
Thats' the biggest gripe. That and the BCS conference bias that will never let a mid major challenge for a title under the current system.
Thats' the biggest gripe. That and the BCS conference bias that will never let a mid major challenge for a title under the current system.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Dec 6, 2009 5:23pm
^^^ And no other NCAA or major professional sport had it's national championships determined by pollsters! Split national titles? Didn't see that in the NFL or NCAA basketball.
Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.
Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Dec 6, 2009 5:25pm
The bigger gripe is the pollsters. The computer doesn't vote with emotion. Coaches and whatever people the BCS use to cook the books with their Harris poll do.chicago510 wrote: No other NCAA or major professional sport uses computers to determine its champion.
Thats' the biggest gripe. That and the BCS conference bias that will never let a mid major challenge for a title under the current system.
T
trep14
Posts: 842
Dec 6, 2009 5:26pm
Nobody is saying revert back to the old system.lhslep134 wrote: ^^^ And no other NCAA or major professional sport had it's national championships determined by pollsters! Split national titles? Didn't see that in the NFL or NCAA basketball.
Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.
Mulva
Posts: 13,650
Dec 6, 2009 5:26pm
You mean like 2003?lhslep134 wrote: Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.
M
MontyBrunswick
Dec 6, 2009 5:27pm
lhslep134 wrote: Say what you want about the BCS, but it's still better than having split national champions.
uhhh....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Dec 6, 2009 5:54pm
Sagarin has the Big East ahead of the Big 12 this year, and Cincinnati actually had a quality OOC win this year at Oregon State.
Let's be honest, Texas is in the championship because they are Texas, and because they were more highly ranked at the beginning of the season.
Let's be honest, Texas is in the championship because they are Texas, and because they were more highly ranked at the beginning of the season.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Dec 6, 2009 6:00pm
Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
K
King Curtis
Posts: 391
Dec 6, 2009 6:03pm
It would be funny as hell if TCU would jump Texas to play Alabama.
Jughead
Posts: 1,261
Dec 6, 2009 6:21pm
Texas benefits by being ranked high in the preseason poll while the rest of the teams had to fight their way up the polls.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Dec 6, 2009 6:27pm
Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
T
trep14
Posts: 842
Dec 6, 2009 6:30pm
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.Skyhook79 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
goosebumps
Posts: 1,058
Dec 6, 2009 6:33pm
trep14 wrote:That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.Skyhook79 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
Ditto on the dumbest idea thought.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Dec 6, 2009 6:36pm
Why don't you look at Cincy's and the Longhorns schedule and results and show me where I am wrong?????trep14 wrote:That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.Skyhook79 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=251
http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2132
T
trep14
Posts: 842
Dec 6, 2009 6:41pm
Who cares where Oklahoma was ranked at the time they played? Its pretty clear now that at no point in the season should Oklahoma have ever been in the top 20. Much of college football rankings are based on preseason polls and it usually takes halfway through the season for the rankings to even start remotely accurately reflecting where teams should be ranked. Oklahoma should have been out of the top 25 the very moment Sam Bradford went down with a shoulder injury in the first half against BYU. Preseason polls are notorious for drastically overrating teams at the beginning of the year. Kind of like Appalachian State beating a "top 5" Michigan team a couple of years ago, when it became pretty clear later on in the season that Michigan had no business sniffing the top 25.Skyhook79 wrote:Why don't you look at Cincy's and the Longhorns schedule and results and show me where I am wrong?????trep14 wrote:That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.Skyhook79 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=251
http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2132
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Dec 6, 2009 6:44pm
"That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard."
Not when polls in the first part of the season are meaningless.
Oklahoma was a freaking stiff this year, they were another team ranked only because of their name.
And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10.
But I'm glad I was able to provide you with the dumbest thing you've ever read...nice..
Not when polls in the first part of the season are meaningless.
Oklahoma was a freaking stiff this year, they were another team ranked only because of their name.
And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10.
But I'm glad I was able to provide you with the dumbest thing you've ever read...nice..
T
trep14
Posts: 842
Dec 6, 2009 6:46pm
Ummm...I was talking to the bozo who said that it matters where teams are ranked when you play them, not where they are ranked in the final polls.Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard."
Not when polls in the first part of the season are meaningless.
Oklahoma was a freaking stiff this year, they were another team ranked only because of their name.
And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10.
But I'm glad I was able to provide you with the dumbest thing you've ever read...nice..
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Dec 6, 2009 6:49pm
Sorry, miss-did my quote, happens on my laptop, I am in full agreement with you.
B
bulldog8
Posts: 497
Dec 7, 2009 12:41am
No one cares about where they were ranked at the time they played. It's not about where you start, it's about where you finish. When comparing quality wins, look at the final records and final rankings to get a fair representation of how good that team is. When comparing teams' opponents, the most fair way is to look at the opponents' winning percentage. Texas' opponents had a 0.525 win percentage while TCU and Cincy had opponent win percentages around 0.480. With those numbers in mind, Texas played a schedule where opponents had more wins. They are deserving of the NC!
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Dec 7, 2009 12:53am
Why is that? Isn't the post season polls the most accurate...encompassing the whole season results?Skyhook79 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
M
Mr Pat
Posts: 519
Dec 7, 2009 2:10am
In 2005 Notre Dame beat #4 Michigan at the time. Looks like Weis DID have a signature win! Nevermind Michigan ended that year ranked lower than Toledo in the "others recieving votes category"...Skyhook79 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Jeez, I just look at the polls, Cincinnati beat 3 teams that were more highly ranked than the highest team Texas beat.
It doesn't mean Texas is "undeserving", but the system is crap.
Not true.
Texas beat #14 Okla St, #20 Oklahoma, and #22 Nebraska
Cincy beat #15 Pitt, #21 S.Fla and #25 West Virginia
You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Dec 7, 2009 2:11am
lol, is that what we HAVE to do? And why is that? Because it fits your argument better?Skyhook79 wrote:You have to go by where they were ranked when they PLAYED not where they are now.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Dec 7, 2009 6:09am
"And it was Oregon State that was the third team, not South Florida genius. Is anyone dumb enough to suggest beating South Florida was more impressive than winning at Corvallis? Who gives a shit if it was early in the year when pollsters didn't respect O-St. enough, they damn near won the Pac-10."
Then how come Cincy's schedule doesn't say they beat 20th ranked Oregon St. and Boise St schedule doesn't say they beat 7th ranked Oregon????????????????
Then how come Cincy's schedule doesn't say they beat 20th ranked Oregon St. and Boise St schedule doesn't say they beat 7th ranked Oregon????????????????