Two of BCS top did not even win their division

[ZOOMBAG]

So UGA is #4 and KU is #5 now in the BCS. 40% of the top five in the BCS could not even manage to win not only their conference race, but not even their own division of their own conference????

[CJHawkeyes]

Are you poking fun at those that think what a team does in an eight game season based on one set of rules should have any bearing on where a team ranks based on 12 games under another set of rules?

[Scarlet Hayes]

Zoom, just had another discussion on this on another board. Alright, I'm willing to be flexible.

Instead of precluding anyone that hadn't won their conference (as you know, we could have an 11-1 Kansas disqualified under my personal rule), why not use it as a tiebreaker/eliminator? For example, last year 11-1 UM gets kicked to the curb in favor of a 1 loss UF that won its conference. I'm sure there are scenarios that would throw a wrench in that as well, but we'll work out the tweaking later.

Just a thought.

[kocurt]

test

[Blue Hen]

Winning a conference title and division is 'real'...nothing voted or opinionated. Why would something ,so 'mythical' as the BCS system, ever want to incorporate anything 'real' into its formula ?

[CJHawkeyes]

Winning a conference title and division is 'real'...nothing voted or opinionated. Why would something ,so 'mythical' as the BCS system, ever want to incorporate anything 'real' into its formula ?

The problem is that the realness of conference titles based on eight games and one set of rules should not preclude a team from being top two based on 12 games and another set of rules. So long as the natonal standings and conference standings are based on different rules, a conference champions only rule could produce an infinite number of circumstances whereby thosing arguing for it will wish they hadn't. Team A is greater than Team B through 12 games based on X Rules, but because Team C is greater than Team A through eight games based on Y Rules, Team B plays for the national title. It makes no sense.

[Blue Hen]

I don't like the 12 games standings because of the 'custom' scheduling factor. It could certainly work if the NCAA assigned balanced schedules. The Conference standings are pretty much based on assigned schedules. I see your points, CJH, but building on Conference standings still beats 'systems' and 'formulas', in my book.

[Bucs90]

Again, you all are making good points. But, my opinion is very basic. The NC should be the best team in the nation. We'll save "best" for another day. But, the idea should be: We have the NC ring. We are the best team in the country.

And I don't see how, without actually playing it out on a field, any team can have the NC ring but not their conference ring. I know the basketball debate is coming up, but in basketball, the NC actually plays it out on the field.

So, if Team A beats Team B in a conference game on September 1st, but Team B gets a lot better, or it's QB heals, but Team A wins the conference, what should happen? In a playoff, if Team B wins out, sure, they won out in a fair playoff including Team A and Team A didn't get it done in the crunch time. But in a 2 team playoff, you almost have to win your conference to be legit.

So, now, if Missouri and WVU lose, is UGA in?

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't like the 12 games standings because of the 'custom' scheduling factor. It could certainly work if the NCAA assigned balanced schedules. The Conference standings are pretty much based on assigned schedules. I see your points, CJH, but building on Conference standings still beats 'systems' and 'formulas', in my book.

I don't like custom scheduling either and the rules I favor would do much more to encourage stronger scheduling. That said, a conference champions only rule doesn't change the fact that a formula decides which two champions are 1-2 based on all games. Therefore, such a rule still makes no sense.

[CJHawkeyes]

Again, you all are making good points. But, my opinion is very basic. The NC should be the best team in the nation. We'll save "best" for another day. But, the idea should be: We have the NC ring. We are the best team in the country.

And I don't see how, without actually playing it out on a field, any team can have the NC ring but not their conference ring. I know the basketball debate is coming up, but in basketball, the NC actually plays it out on the field.

So, if Team A beats Team B in a conference game on September 1st, but Team B gets a lot better, or it's QB heals, but Team A wins the conference, what should happen? In a playoff, if Team B wins out, sure, they won out in a fair playoff including Team A and Team A didn't get it done in the crunch time. But in a 2 team playoff, you almost have to win your conference to be legit.

So, now, if Missouri and WVU lose, is UGA in?

Team A beats the top four teams OOC while Team B beats the bottom four teams. Team A goes 7-1 in Conference X and finishes in 2nd. Team B goes 7-1 in Conference Y and finishes first. Team B is more legit? Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but there are significantly less extreme examples that demonstrate the problems with a conference champions only rule.

Again, Team A > Team B based on the values of their entire resume, but because Team A's conference season is less valuable than Team C's, Team B's overall season is > than Team A's afterall? Suppose Team A's conference season is less than C's based HTH tiebreaker only and Team A beat Team B in OOC play? A conference champions only rule makes no sense when different rules and schedules determine the national and conference standings.

[ZOOMBAG]

Depends on the voters at that point. KU is behind UGA in the BCS right now by a few points, so voters would have to flip a bit to leap KU over UGA. But then you UGA in the same boat, they didn't even win their division, just like KU.

[buckeyejim]

Again, you all are making good points. But, my opinion is very basic. The NC should be the best team in the nation. We'll save "best" for another day. But, the idea should be: We have the NC ring. We are the best team in the country.

And I don't see how, without actually playing it out on a field, any team can have the NC ring but not their conference ring. I know the basketball debate is coming up, but in basketball, the NC actually plays it out on the field.

So, if Team A beats Team B in a conference game on September 1st, but Team B gets a lot better, or it's QB heals, but Team A wins the conference, what should happen? In a playoff, if Team B wins out, sure, they won out in a fair playoff including Team A and Team A didn't get it done in the crunch time. But in a 2 team playoff, you almost have to win your conference to be legit.

So, now, if Missouri and WVU lose, is UGA in?

Bucs90, I think that if Oklahoma beats Missouri and West Virginia somehow loses to Pitt (I just don't see this happening), I think Oklahoma will be ranked higher than Georgia, having just beaten the #1 team. Oklahoma would be 11-2 and Georgia 10-2.

[Bucs90]

True, OU may jump UGA in that scenario, and if WVU and Mizzou lose, I hope that happens. A 2 loss non-division champ UGA getting in over Big 12 2 loss Champ OU, or even 2 loss ACC Champ VT would be a crime. I'd even argue 2 loss USC would be more deserving than UGA.

To me, the conference championship is huge. You have to win that to be a National Champion in this system. In playoff, 8 teams, 6 BCS auto bids, next 2 highest ranked non-BCS conference champs, this wouldn't matter.

I'm a huge SEC and Southern football fan, but I'm also consistent. And if UGA gets in the NC over a 2 loss OU or VT who were conference champs, it'll be a crime.

[Bucs90]

Georgia is gonna be tough in 09 and 08. Georgia may be this year what USC was in 2002. That South Carolina loss now looks even worse!!! Had UGA beat South Carolina, they'd probably be in the top 2 right now. Combined with a CCG win over LSU, UGA likely to be #1.....had they not lost to S. Carolina. UGA fans must hate Spurrier more with each passing day!

[AJBuckeye]

Just like last year I think we will see alot of movement. The only scenario that will comes to play is if both WVU and Mizzou go down. This is highly unlikely. If it does I got a feeling that one of the conference champs surpasses UGA and Kansas. VT and LSU are both positioned well. Especially for LSU. I can't see voters putting UGA ahead of LSU if LSU wins the SEC CCG. Oklahoma has a shot but they have a ton of ground to make up in the computers. Not sure if a win will give them the points they need.

You got to keep in mind that back when Nebraska made it in 2001 and USC who was left out when they were the #1 team in the country, the BCS was much more heavily computer driven. Now with the human polls weighing in more heavily the chances of bigger swings are much more possible.

[Bucs90]

It may not be that unlikely for both teams to lose. WVU losing to Pitt is a huge upset. But I think OU has a great shot at upsetting Missouri. In the case that both win, will OSU fans argue they should be in? Four 1 loss teams, can't argue against it really. A 1 loss OSU, WVU and Missouri would all have an argument.

[AJBuckeye]

I think if WVU or Mizzou lose they have no argument against OSU. They have their opportunity and if they don't take advantage of it then they don't deserve a shot at the title. Personally I think OSU has an argument against WVU when you look at the schedules and compare losses and wins. But WVU lost in september and they did have some significant injuries so if they win I will be the first to admit they deserve to go.

[H.I.]

I think it is funny that the "regular season matters, each week is a playoff" crowd has no problem with a 5-3 division winner defeating an 8-0 division winner for the conference championship. When in reality that 8-1 conference runner-up would still have a 2 game advantage over the actual conference champion. That really makes sense if you're apart of the "regular season matters" crowd and hate the idea of a playoff.

[Bucs90]

Good point H.I. My question for those people is this: If the regular season is a playoff, how can a team lose it's division, yet still get into the NC 2 team playoff? The principle of the regular season being a playoff would imply that the 1st goal of the regular season is to win the division and conference in order to make it to the next goal, the NC. Kind of like in a playoff, have to win the 1st round to make it to the 2nd round, win 2nd to make 3rd. So, if the regular season is a playoff, then the division championship would = 1st round, conference championship = 2nd round, NC = 3rd round.

[GatorGrad]

My take is that unless you're going to have a playoff that includes ALL conference champs getting auto bids, you really can't require a team to be a conference champ, or win their division within their conference, to play for the MNC. Especially in a small 2 or even 4 team playoff. Not all conferences are created equally and it is possible for a 2nd or 3rd best team from one conference to be better than the best team from another conference.

In 1998, Florida lost 20-17 in OT @ Tennessee. The Vols went unbeaten as SEC Champs, and claimed one of the two spots in the BCS Title Game. Florida won the rest of their SEC games (7-1) and would have rematched Tennessee in the BCS Title Game had they beaten FSU in the final game of the season. Instead, one loss FSU faced Tennessee after beating Florida. My point is that it is possible for two teams from the same conference, or even same division, to finish #1 and #2 in the BCS Standings, or any other national standings that are possible to come up with. Should Florida not be included in a 2 or 4 team BCS Playoff if they were #2 in the standings, just because the #1 team happened to be in their own division? What if the "next best" conference champs had 3 or 4 losses? Should one-loss Florida really be excluded from any playoff in favor of a three-loss Big East Champ for example?

This concept is all over sports with wildcards...NFL and MLB allow teams that don't win their division to play in a playoff. The Steelers were 2005 World Champions despite not winning the AFC North. The Red Sox were 2004 World Champions despite not winning the AL East. And it happens all the time in college basketball. Try to look at it like two separate "games" with different rules. While winning one game (division or conference) can help win the second game, or grant automatic entry into the second game, it is not always required to compete in the second game. While I think division/conference titles should result in, at the very least, the opportunity to participate in the big playoff at the end in any sport, I don't think they have to be required.

[Bucs90]

I suppose my argument is this: If a team does not win it's conference, the ONLY way it should be allowed to play for a NC is if the team that DID win that conference is included in a playoff format along with the other team. If a playoff is big enough to have auto bids and at large bids, then sure, a non CC should be in with a chance to win, such as 98 Florida as you stated. If 98 Florida rematched UT, it would be OK as one could argue the team that won the SEC was in the 2 team playoff along with runner up UF.

I'm big on crunch time and conference championships. As a former 1-AA guy, 1-AA players see the CC as a required right of passage to the playoffs. So, I look at it that way.

[GatorGrad]

One more thing...you can't require conference champs only to play for the BCS Title because teams like Notre Dame and Navy are Independent....unfortunately. No matter what playoff you have, whether it's 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, or 16....there will HAVE to be "at large" bids for this very reason.

And there's really no point in allowing conference champs to have automatic bids into any playoff unless it is a minimum of 8 teams (6 auto bids + 2 at large.) 16 teams with 11 auto bids + 5 at large would be ideal but it's not happening anytime soon. So might as well enjoy the 2-team playoff we have now and hope that they expand to a 4-team playoff in the next decade and see where that goes.

[CJHawkeyes]

Good point H.I. My question for those people is this: If the regular season is a playoff, how can a team lose it's division, yet still get into the NC 2 team playoff? The principle of the regular season being a playoff would imply that the 1st goal of the regular season is to win the division and conference in order to make it to the next goal, the NC. Kind of like in a playoff, have to win the 1st round to make it to the 2nd round, win 2nd to make 3rd. So, if the regular season is a playoff, then the division championship would = 1st round, conference championship = 2nd round, NC = 3rd round.

I'm not a regular season is a playoff proponent, but I think I have explained why a team can lose its division and still play for the national title. The national and conference races are separate competitions with different schedules and rules. It is semantics to argue that a team that "can't even win its division" shouldn't play for the national title. Nobody ever argues that Team A can't be ranked ahead of Team B based on all games even if the latter was the conference champion except where the top 2 is concerned and the argument is almost certainly not to the benefit of Team B, but rather to a third team because it won another conference race separate from the national title race even though the results of both conferences races are a part of the overall picture that determined Team A to be greater than the third team.

Also, since being in a conference is not required and winning a conference title does not guarantee a playoff berth, why should a team be obligated to win it just to avoid their top two 12-game resume being negated by no conference title based on eight games? How do you force a conference to "officially" recognize a champion if doing so will deny the conference a place in the title game?

[H.I.]

Not all conferences are created equally and it is possible for a 2nd or 3rd best team from one conference to be better than the best team from another conference.


That's correct. But the 2nd or 3rd place team from its own conference, can't be better than the 1st place team from their own conference. UGA might be better than WVU, but UGA definitely isn't better than Tennessee.

[CJHawkeyes]

That's correct. But the 2nd or 3rd place team from its own conference, can't be better than the 1st place team from their own conference. UGA might be better than WVU, but UGA definitely isn't better than Tennessee.

Why not? UGA is 10-2 overall whereas Tennessee is 9-3 overall. Furthermore, Georgia beat Florida, Florida beat Tennessee, and Tennessee beat Georgia. HTH is an overrated tiebreaker that rewards a team for losing to an opponent with a different record (and often worse record) as much as it does for beating an opponent that happens to share the same record. It doesn't reward an inherently more deserving team. If Florida is 6-2 in conference, Georgia could win a three-way tie with Tennessee finishing third as opposed to Tennessee winning a two-way tie. Under both scenarios, Georgia's and Tennessee's resumes remain the same.

[Bucs90]

Hmmmm. So, you're saying it is sort of like Miss America. A girl can win Miss America, and another girl can win Miss Congeniality. But winning Miss Congeniality isn't necessary to win Miss America? I guess I can see the point in a way.

[ZOOMBAG]

Post Season is always completely separate from the regular season. Regular season qualifies you,then the slate is wiped clean and you start all over, only this time with a much more reduced field of elite teams. No the slate isn't entirely clean as we have seeding and possible favorable venues, but essentially everyone is 0-0 again. Nowhere did that point drive home more than here in Omaha this past weekend. UNO gets its first undefeated season ever, 10-0 and loses their first playoff game to a team that went 8-2....

[JamesHowell]

By definition, any at-large team from a BCS conference will have not won their conference since the conference champs are autobids. Of note, Kansas and Georgia will be ranked lower than Missouri and and LSU respectively should Missouri and LSU win their conferences.

[GatorGrad]

That's correct. But the 2nd or 3rd place team from its own conference, can't be better than the 1st place team from their own conference. UGA might be better than WVU, but UGA definitely isn't better than Tennessee.

Why is UGA "definitely" better than Tennessee? Did you know that the two teams are co-SEC East Champs? Tiebreakers call for Tennessee to represent the SEC East in the SEC Championship Game, but the two teams finished with identical SEC records. If you're going to have a playoff that ONLY involves conference champs (which will never happen as long as there are independents) then fine...no 2nd place conference team needs to be included. But in any other potential playoff, you can't require every single team to be a conference champion.

[Bucs90]

I think a playoff can include non-conference champs....but ONLY if the playoff includes the conference champ. So, it should be big enough to accomodate, or limited to conference champs only.