RealGM

If Kansas is #5 in the BCS. Why schedule tough teams? Why not face friggin div 2 teams or just terrible teams period? Aslong as you beat all of them by a good amount and take care of business in your conference, then you're able ot make a BCS game.

Absolute joke. this is why NCAA football is not the best NCAA sport.

Ask Jim Tressel. He makes a cupcake OOC schedule every year, and Ohio State seems to be in the mix every time.

gunnabdaschwab09 wrote:Ask Jim Tressel. He makes a cupcake OOC schedule every year, and Ohio State seems to be in the mix every time.

Might want to actually look this stuff up before you make blanket statements. OSU played Texas the last two years before this one, that alone makes the OOC schedule worthwhile. That said, there's no doubt that OSU has really proven nothing this year since getting beaten by Florida last year. If OSU gets beat soundly again in their bowl, I'll be mentally adding a loss and a half to the whole Big 10 conference until they prove themselves again.

As to the thread in general, I agree in principle and will say this season proves without a shadow of a doubt that the sport is suffering for not having some kind of playoff. However, nobody with 2 losses gets to complain about not getting to the title game. There hasn't been a 2-loss national champ in almost 50 years. Basic rule is that if you lose even one game you consider yourself lucky to have a shot at the title. Losing two should have any fan thinking their team is talented enough be champs bitching about their team's poor performance not about the unfairness of life.

gunnabdaschwab09 wrote:Ask Jim Tressel. He makes a cupcake OOC schedule every year, and Ohio State seems to be in the mix every time.

you obviously started watching CFB this year.

Need playoff system.

Two minor points:

1. Many times the non-conference opponents are determined at least 5 years ahead of time. In Ohio State's case, they scheduled those games against Texas for the 05 and 06 seasons right after the 99 season ended.

2. Most power conference teams schedule basically the same way every year: one in-state MAC/WAC/C-USA/MWC school, a home/home series with a roughly equivalent program from another power conference, a "breather" game either right before conference play or, in the SEC's case, during the season.

I'll use LSU this year as an example. They opened with conference foe Miss. State, then faced Virginia Tech, a roughly equivalent power school as part of a home/home series set up when Mike Vick was in Blacksburg. Their "breather" game came next, Middle Tennessee. After another conference game, they played lower-rung in-state rival Tulane. They took their late-season breather against low-rung in-state rival Louisiana Tech, whom they play just about every year IIRC.

West Virginia isn't taking much crap for their cupcake non-conference schedule this year: Western Michigan, Marshall, East Carolina, Maryland, and Miss. State. Of course when they scheduled WMU and Maryland those teams were both significantly better than they are now.

ElTurco wrote::crazy: you obviously started watching CFB this year.

I was just poking fun, trying to egg somebody on to commenting about Kansas (who I've supported all season actually)..... that didn't work.

Why is #1 Missouri the underdog this week against Oklahoma??? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Why face tough OCC schedule?

See: Hawaii.

Undefeated but they can't get any love =/

yea but hawaii isnt in a bcs conference, they play a cupcake schedule like OSU did this year in a BCS conference, they'e in the title game without a 2nd thought

SportsWorld wrote:Why is #1 Missouri the underdog this week against Oklahoma??? WHY? WHY? WHY?

It is quite amusing isn't it? Does seem like a red flagged about how voters don't quite use the same formula as people who actually make a living off of knowing which team is better.

SportsWorld wrote:Why is #1 Missouri the underdog this week against Oklahoma??? WHY? WHY? WHY?

vegas pays more attention to head to head games than overall standings

What bugs me, even though I don't believe Missouri should be #1, is that they have to play against Oklahoma and risk losing while Ohio State can just sit and watch.I know the individual conferences decide if they have a championship game, but if they aren't going to do a playoff they should at least make it even across each conference. Everyone does it or no one does.

As far as schedules, how many teams beat at least 4 ranked teams?

High 5 wrote:What bugs me, even though I don't believe Missouri should be #1, is that they have to play against Oklahoma and risk losing while Ohio State can just sit and watch.I know the individual conferences decide if they have a championship game, but if they aren't going to do a playoff they should at least make it even across each conference. Everyone does it or no one does.

As far as schedules, how many teams beat at least 4 ranked teams?

Not many, if you go by the current rankings and not rankings at the time they played the games:

Mizzou, Virginia Tech, and LSU, and all are playing a 5th this weekend. I extended the rankings out to teams that were ranked last week but lost.
Ohio State played 3
Oklahoma played 3, plus this weekend
Georgia played 3
USC played 2
West Virginia played 2
BC played 2
Kansas played 1

I can't figure the math out, but I would have to think that if Virginia Tech had finished off BC, they'd be no worse than #2.

Kansas played one game against a team that finished better than 7-5, and one of the 7-5 teams was Central Michigan, which got beat by a I-AA school and lost to Clemson 70-14. IMO they don't belong anywhere near the top 10.

High 5 wrote:What bugs me, even though I don't believe Missouri should be #1, is that they have to play against Oklahoma and risk losing while Ohio State can just sit and watch.I know the individual conferences decide if they have a championship game, but if they aren't going to do a playoff they should at least make it even across each conference. Everyone does it or no one does.

I don't disagree, but it doesn't really bother me compared to the other issues in the non-playoff system. For one, as you mentioned, these championship games are simply cash grabs by the very schools who can get hurt by them, so it serves them right. Second, if a team does miss out on the national title game due to this, I see this more as them being exposed than anything else. Yeah, it's an added challenge other teams don't have, but the team isn't going to stumble for no reason. When Oklahoma lost a few years back, it was a screaming red flag: These guys aren't what we thought they were. And when they lost in the national title game, it confirmed this.

Did you catch the irony there that the team that was utterly exposed in conference still made the title game?

Will say though, it drives me nuts how teams that lose to teams they were supposed to lose to get dropped, and conference title games are the worst examples of this. People were saying about Georgia last week "They might want to cheer for Tennessee so that they won't risk losing to LSU and missing out on a BCS bowl". Ridiculous system that makes statements like that not only exist, but reasonable.

[quote="Icness"][/quote]

Nice job with those stats. I still don't think Missouri is the best team in the country, (don't think anyone does) but they're more deserving that I had thought previously. Certainly more deserving than Kansas ever watch. What a crock that Kansas was ranked 2 without playing a single ranked team. They're still ranked 5 while losing to the only ranked team they played.

And no doubt about VT. They would probably be #1.

Doctor MJ: That definitely doesn't bother me the most about the BCS, it's just all the other areas have been beaten to death. I love having a championship game, winning the SEC means everything around here. I just wish every conference had a championship game and they could have a playoff as a result. Gives the small schools a chance and avoids a lot of controversy.

There's definitely a workable solution out there. Here's a bracket of what a potential playoff system would look like using this year:



http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AnF0Y6bZVB5PibeEBLs9P4g5nYcB?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

you dont need 16 teams though, id be in favor of a plus 1 system or 6 teams. you can usually tell who the best team in the land is or the top teams, the most teams id have is 8

studcrackers wrote:you dont need 16 teams though, id be in favor of a plus 1 system or 6 teams. you can usually tell who the best team in the land is or the top teams, the most teams id have is 8

The most that is needed is 8 teams, but if this year hasn't proven the need to put in a playoff system nothing will. I think a few teams from the SEC are better than Ohio State who has a very good chance at making it to the Championship game once again. I hope that West Virginia and Missouri both win out to prevent that from happening, but no matter one team that is really good and probably deserved to play for the Championship can't because of its conferences playoff system.

Wow that would take a lot of extra games. I'd be content just with a 4-team playoff.

I would like 8 games (I'd just like a playoff period), I was just posting one of the brackets I have seen proposed. That was the main story on Yahoo today.