NCAA Bowl Season 2011

[TL5]

I'd just like to add that it was the SEC and Commissioner Mike Slive who put forward the proposition of a Plus 1 system 3 years ago, and we lobbied very hard for it. It was rejected by a few of the other conferences, INCLUDING the Big 12 and Pac 10, who didn't even want to have the discussion at all. When Gundy said his school "bought into this system several years ago" during the BCS show Sunday night, he conveniently ommitted the fact that the "buying in" also included REJECTING this Plus 1 option which would have given his team, along with Stanford an opportunity to play for a title this year.

So please, spare us the whining and sniveling.

It should also be pointed out that the current system is also a product of a former SEC Commissioner (Roy Kramer) and the proposed +1 Slive presented was being done because an SEC team was left out of the championship game (Auburn) and was concerned that it would happen again. So it's understandable that commissioners from other conferences would be skeptical of the proposal.

The problem with the system is that the criteria is ever changing, apparently to suit the whims of the SEC.
Had the same criteria been used in 2006 that applies this year, Florida would've been left out of the BCSNC game and there would have been an Ohio State - Michigan rematch.
The rationale that prevented Michigan from playing has been reversed to allow Bama a second chance.

I've said my peace concerning the BSC/SEC Championship Game 2.2. I won't be watching, I really don't care who wins the SEC, again, this year.

OSU Stanford looks like a good match-up.
I have a casual interest in Vandy vs Cincy in the Liberty because Vandy is local and I'd like for them to show well.

I took one class at GaTech, so I'll probably watch GT vs Utah in the Sun Bowl.

The "Meyer Bowl" has a little extra in the form of a story-line. However, the only thing that would be great about that game would be if both teams could somehow lose.

Otherwise, the Bowls look very un-interesting to me this year.

 

[finalrequiem]

...I'm just wanting to point out that many folks are making all these ridiculous accusations against the SEC, or claiming SEC bias is the culprit for all that is wrong with college football...

I agree with you here- At the time, the Big 12 wanted no part of changing a system that was working in it's favor year in and year out. I think some of the Big 12 fans forget that the system worked in it's favor for years. What stings, for OSU fans, is that we're getting screwed (to be melodramatic) twice in the last two years by OU and Texas and the conference pandering to those two.

For the uninformed- Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri basically left over the lack of revenue sharing and a conference network. The team who initially refused both of those things? OU. They have had designs for an "OU Network" for years. They now realize how much they overvalued their brand (One of the best traditions in all of sports? Yes. Too bad there are only 4 million people in this whole state. It's all about viewers, not wins.), but it's too late, the damage is done. Texas has the network, we've run off two programs who bring in a TON of money (even if A&M is the most over-rated program of all time), and significantly weakened the perception of our conference.

 

[briand]

y'know... all this "anti-SEC" whining that's going on regarding the BCS reminds me of the first several years after its creation, when folks started calling it the "Bowden Championship Series" because, no matter how they tweaked the numbers, adjusted/weighted things, FSU would consistently show up at #1 or #2...

I feel confident in saying that a) there are problems with the BCS, and b) a lot of folks are unhappy with it. That said, I don't see it going away any time soon, either....

I would prefer that you take the top 24 teams in [pick a ranking system, even if it's the existing BCS system] and square 'em off in double-elimination. By my reckoning, that'd give us another 5 or 6 weekends of college football, and I don't see any problem with that!

 

[Pilgrim]

If you look back at the box score from the first Bama LSU game, you will notice that Bama led almost every category -- and if you watched the game you know Bama moved the ball more effectively. A loss by 3 points in overtime is not exactly a convincing win, and if Bama should happen to beat LSU convincingly in the NCG game, there would be no doubt who is the National Champion.

You may very well be right. Howsomever - since I don't care about either Alabama or LSU, I didn't watch the first game and I'm unlikely to watch their second game. My opinion is unchanged - if Bama beats LSU, as far as I'm concerned they tie for the season.

(I'm not anti-SEC; I'm just west coast-centric.)

 

[king_biscuit]

if Bama beats LSU, as far as I'm concerned they tie for the season.

Ok then

 

[Pilgrim]

Ok then

Brewskis!!

 

[Eublet]

If you look back at the box score from the first Bama LSU game, you will notice that Bama led almost every category -- and if you watched the game you know Bama moved the ball more effectively. A loss by 3 points in overtime is not exactly a convincing win, and if Bama should happen to beat LSU convincingly in the NCG game, there would be no doubt who is the National Champion.

+1

 

[Eublet]

The problem with the system is that the criteria is ever changing, apparently to suit the whims of the SEC.

I would disagree simply because there was no SEC-centric motivation for the creation of the BCS years ago. We weren't on a domination run at the time of it's creation. The BCS was even harder to put in place than a Plus 1 is now simply because everyone was concerned about the sanctity of their regional bowl games. That's understandable.

Had the same criteria been used in 2006 that applies this year, Florida would've been left out of the BCSNC game and there would have been an Ohio State - Michigan rematch.
The rationale that prevented Michigan from playing has been reversed to allow Bama a second chance.

Not so at all. There is no rationale at all here, except in the collective sense from all the voters. There were extra games following the Michigan loss that year that allowed Florida to show it's strength and jump Michigan in the polls. Had Florida lost to a 6-6 team that late that year (instead of a 10-2 Auburn team), we would have had a rematch. In short, it's OSU's fault for losing this year. No one to blame but themselves.

 

[GregC]

The problem with the system is that the criteria is ever changing, apparently to suit the whims of the SEC.
Had the same criteria been used in 2006 that applies this year, Florida would've been left out of the BCSNC game and there would have been an Ohio State - Michigan rematch.
The rationale that prevented Michigan from playing has been reversed to allow Bama a second chance.

Not really, the situations aren't precisely parallel.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Michigan didn't lose in OT to Ohio State in 2006. They were down by 11 points until they scored a TD with 2 minutes left. Ohio State was clearly superior in every statistical category in that game, except they turned the ball over 3 times to Michigan's zero.

Meanwhile, unlike Oklahoma State, the 2006 Florida team didn't lose to a .500 team with a .333 record in its conference. It lost to Auburn, which went 11-2 that year. (And that game was on the road just like OK State's.)

 

[aborgman]

The problem is that most voters don't think those teams, even though ranked higher, are as good as many of the SEC teams that aren't ranked as high.

Based on the released voting, and past comments from coaches poll and Harris poll voters... most voters don't think.

Last I knew about half the "coaches" poll votes were being filled out by SID's and the coaches didn't even know what they voted for.

 

[TL5]

2006

 

[jp58]

If Bama beats LSU, as far as I'm concerned they tie for the season.

(I'm not anti-SEC; I'm just west coast-centric.)

I feel the same way, only I homer for almost all SEC teams.

 

[finalrequiem]

Let's just all agree that the "process" is 2/3 subjective and will never be completely consistent or "fair" until voting is taken out of it. Humans are, well, human. They are finite and can't see EVERY team play all the time. Also, there is a reason that teams in certain conferences are built similarly, most of the time. They tend to be built to beat the teams they play most often and voters who only see box scores can't take that in to account if they aren't day-to-day familiar with a conference. Matchups are important and it's hard for voters to not be influenced by the "eye test"- "Nobody in the Pac 12 or Big 12 is physical", "The SEC offenses aren't any good", "The Big 10 sucks" (Ok, we can all agree on that one ), etc.

I think all I'd like for people to admit is that it IS subjective instead of acting like it's FACT that Alabama's claim is clear-cut better than anyone else's.

 

[Eublet]

The Big 12 has changed it's mind on the Plus One. Just released 30 minutes ago.

Link Removed

 

[GregC]

2006

Haha, I vaguely recall that biased dreck.

Gene brings up UF's cupcakes, but conveniently omits the fact that UM played Central Michigan and Ball State, squeaking by the latter by 8 points.

Michigan beat ZERO ranked teams in '06. None, zilch, nada.

He leaves out the fact that Auburn/UF was a one-point game for more than a quarter, until the last 30 seconds when Auburn kicked a FG then got a TD on a freak turnover as time expired.

He claims UM would control the line of scrimmage on both sides. Yet OSU outrushed and outpassed UM in their matchup. (That game was only close because of a 3-0 turnover margin.) And UM went on to rack up 12 yards of rushing against USC.

UF 41, OSU 14 (and it wasn't even that close)
USC 32, Michigan 18

Bottom line, Florida's case was stronger than OK State's is, and Bama's is stronger than Michgan's was.

 

[TL5]

IMHO, Bama has no case to be made, just as Michigan didn't. The criteria should be the same and it isn't. Michigan didn't belong, neither does Alabama.

The BCS is to college football what American Idol is to singing talent.
Sure there has to be a measurable amount of talent on display to be considered, but in the end it's just a popularity contest.

 

[king_biscuit]

IMHO, Bama has no case to be made, just as Michigan didn't. The criteria should be the same and it isn't. Michigan didn't belong, neither does Alabama.

Alabama doesn't have to make any case as this was all decided (with the exception of one vote from Nick Saban) by other people and computers.

However, most of the objective football experts believe that Alabama is a better team than OSU, and that is why Bama is in and OSU is out. To pick OSU -- the peoples choice apparently -- would have actually looked more "American Idol!"

 

[MJ5150]

Bottom line........

Greg layin' the smackdown. Next......

-Mike

 

[Richland123]

According to this bowl schedule, there are 35 different bowl games with 70 teams out of 120 NCAA Division I Football Programs for 2011. Do we need so many bowl games with teams that have poor records? There were not that many bowl games even ten years ago and teams are rewarded for having an average or poor year. I know it's all about the TV and bowl money for the colleges and NCAA to create revenue sources for themselves.

 

[Eublet]

According to this bowl schedule, there are 35 different bowl games with 70 teams out of 120 NCAA Division I Football Programs for 2011. Do we need so many bowl games with teams that have poor records? There were not that many bowl games even ten years ago and teams are rewarded for having an average or poor year. I know it's all about the TV and bowl money for the colleges and NCAA to create revenue sources for themselves.

Good question. There was a report that came out last year about how many of these 120 schools actually make money on their athletics department in general. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but it was a fraction of them. Even most of the teams that are regularly in the top 25 in football LOSE money every year on athletics. Most of the loss comes from programs outside of football, so in essence, the answer to your question is definitely yes. Many of these schools have to have a bowl appearance to make some extra money so that they can afford to stay operational.

If you think about it, imagine how much money it costs to fly the women's volleyball team around the country all season to play games. Then factor in men's wrestling, baseball, golf, gymanstics, and on and on. these sports aren't bringing in much money at all. Football, and for a few schools basketball, pays the bills.

I see nothing wrong with having a bunch of bowl games myself. It gives the fans a chance to see their team play someone unusual, and it's easy to pick and choose what we want to watch.