Michigan remains #2 in BCS

[austin316]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
The whole point of the BCS is to put the best two teams in the country against each other for the championship, which is where we are now with OSU #1 and Michigan #2. I don't know why anyone would argue that USC deserves to be #2 when they clearly aren't the 2nd best team in the country, and they lost to an unranked team.

usc also played a very touch schedule and won those games, you cant base ranking based on 1 close loss

so..... you can't base ranking based on 1 close loss for SC, but you can base ranking on 1 close loss for Michigan? :roll:

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Wreckem

If USC played Arkansas today, they would so get f'in owned.

Sweet.

Next year, the BCS title should be decided by zero games and your one-man poll.

My whole point is, all these people argue USC beat Arkansas, which was a ****** team to start the season.

If USC wants the benifits(which they get under the BCS system), of beating an unranked team at the time who is now #6, they need to take the egg of losing to an unranked team. Which thankfully they are. Anyone who loses to an unranked team does NOT deserve a title shot. Period. Its laughable. However if USC wins vs ND and UCLA, they are in.

Ok, in the BCS world your argument tries to make sense. I see the pt. you are trying to make. But the real point is that the BCS system is crap. I can dismantle this argument 100 times by showing you teams that lost to lesser teams but went on to win championships. The facts are that in sports, even the best teams have off days. That doesn't mean they aren't good or we should just stop their seasons when they lose to a lesser team. And the problem with the BCS is it acts differently at the end of the season which is crap. It should be consistent throughout at least, and that means Michigan should not be #2 immediately after a loss.

Dont try to compare the pro game to college football.

There is parity in pro football.

College football is far away from parity.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Balt
USC has only played 10 games, UM has played 12.

If USC wins out in an impressive fashion, they will most likely jump Michigan in the BCS.

Its not most likely, they will jump michigan, even if they beat ND and UCLA by 1. They will easily make up the .008 difference.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

 

[Slikkster]

I think the rankings should always be based on who's the best teams, not who has a perfect record, etc. I don't care about "giving someone else a shot". One loss shouldn't automatically drop some team in the rankings, particularly in a game that could have gone either way. If Michigan is better than any other runnerup team but has a worse record because of the loss to OS, so be it. They should go to the national championship game.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Wreckem

If USC played Arkansas today, they would so get f'in owned.

Sweet.

Next year, the BCS title should be decided by zero games and your one-man poll.

My whole point is, all these people argue USC beat Arkansas, which was a ****** team to start the season.

If USC wants the benifits(which they get under the BCS system), of beating an unranked team at the time who is now #6, they need to take the egg of losing to an unranked team. Which thankfully they are. Anyone who loses to an unranked team does NOT deserve a title shot. Period. Its laughable. However if USC wins vs ND and UCLA, they are in.

Ok, in the BCS world your argument tries to make sense. I see the pt. you are trying to make. But the real point is that the BCS system is crap. I can dismantle this argument 100 times by showing you teams that lost to lesser teams but went on to win championships. The facts are that in sports, even the best teams have off days. That doesn't mean they aren't good or we should just stop their seasons when they lose to a lesser team. And the problem with the BCS is it acts differently at the end of the season which is crap. It should be consistent throughout at least, and that means Michigan should not be #2 immediately after a loss.

Dont try to compare the pro game to college football.

There is parity in pro football.

College football is far away from parity.

Who said I was only trying to compare pro and college football. I said all other sports with playoffs. Nice try but your argument is still flawed. There are plenty of good 1 loss teams in college football and any of them legitimately deserve a shot at the NC.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Slikkster
I think the rankings should always be based on who's the best teams, not who has a perfect record, etc. I don't care about "giving someone else a shot". One loss shouldn't automatically drop some team in the rankings, particularly in a game that could have gone either way. If Michigan is better than any other runnerup team but has a worse record because of the loss to OS, so be it. They should go to the national championship game.

I think people would agree, but the only way to prove this is on the field. I am sorry but people's opinions are always subjective and any ranking system is not going to prove who is the best team. Let the best team win a bracket and prove themselves.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season. This is another ridiculous 'feature' of the BCS.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Wreckem

If USC played Arkansas today, they would so get f'in owned.

Sweet.

Next year, the BCS title should be decided by zero games and your one-man poll.

My whole point is, all these people argue USC beat Arkansas, which was a ****** team to start the season.

If USC wants the benifits(which they get under the BCS system), of beating an unranked team at the time who is now #6, they need to take the egg of losing to an unranked team. Which thankfully they are. Anyone who loses to an unranked team does NOT deserve a title shot. Period. Its laughable. However if USC wins vs ND and UCLA, they are in.

Ok, in the BCS world your argument tries to make sense. I see the pt. you are trying to make. But the real point is that the BCS system is crap. I can dismantle this argument 100 times by showing you teams that lost to lesser teams but went on to win championships. The facts are that in sports, even the best teams have off days. That doesn't mean they aren't good or we should just stop their seasons when they lose to a lesser team. And the problem with the BCS is it acts differently at the end of the season which is crap. It should be consistent throughout at least, and that means Michigan should not be #2 immediately after a loss.

Dont try to compare the pro game to college football.

There is parity in pro football.

College football is far away from parity.

Who said I was only trying to compare pro and college football. I said all other sports with playoffs. Nice try but your argument is still flawed. There are plenty of good 1 loss teams in college football and any of them legitimately deserve a shot at the NC.

Well you cant really compare different sports.

Try comparing it to Division I-AA, or Division II or Division III. Oh thats right if you did your theory would fail severely.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: Slikkster
I think the rankings should always be based on who's the best teams, not who has a perfect record, etc. I don't care about "giving someone else a shot". One loss shouldn't automatically drop some team in the rankings, particularly in a game that could have gone either way. If Michigan is better than any other runnerup team but has a worse record because of the loss to OS, so be it. They should go to the national championship game.

how do you make the call though, you have only seen michigan and osu play

maybe michigan matchs up well with osu and thus played them close, maybe osu doesnt match with usc/floridya and looses.

that is why you need to look at the strength of schedule etc

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Complete BCS rankings published here - Text

LOL... Cal is still ranked higher than Tennessee. :laugh:

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season.

Michigan didnt play a single Division I-AA team. Florida did.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Slikkster
I think the rankings should always be based on who's the best teams, not who has a perfect record, etc. I don't care about "giving someone else a shot". One loss shouldn't automatically drop some team in the rankings, particularly in a game that could have gone either way. If Michigan is better than any other runnerup team but has a worse record because of the loss to OS, so be it. They should go to the national championship game.

how do you make the call though, you have only seen michigan and osu play

maybe michigan matchs up well with osu and thus played them close, maybe osu doesnt match with usc/floridya and looses.

that is why you need to look at the strength of schedule etc

As Mel Kiper has argued on ESPN lately, SOS as implemented doesn't work. How do you tell by wins and losses who has the best SOS? Does Boise State's schedule compare with USC's? Nope, teams don't play the same level of competition throughout a season. Therefore this becomes subjective again as voters try to guess at who has the better SOS.

 

[Syringer]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings?week=6

All the comps have Mich at #2 and PUSC at #3 except for one.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

Why? Fl St has shown in more recent games that they deserve to be unranked...Why should Clemson get credit for such a strong victory?

 

[austin316]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season. This is another ridiculous 'feature' of the BCS.

Um, the have played 3 teams ranked in the top 8

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Wreckem

If USC played Arkansas today, they would so get f'in owned.

Sweet.

Next year, the BCS title should be decided by zero games and your one-man poll.

My whole point is, all these people argue USC beat Arkansas, which was a ****** team to start the season.

If USC wants the benifits(which they get under the BCS system), of beating an unranked team at the time who is now #6, they need to take the egg of losing to an unranked team. Which thankfully they are. Anyone who loses to an unranked team does NOT deserve a title shot. Period. Its laughable. However if USC wins vs ND and UCLA, they are in.

Ok, in the BCS world your argument tries to make sense. I see the pt. you are trying to make. But the real point is that the BCS system is crap. I can dismantle this argument 100 times by showing you teams that lost to lesser teams but went on to win championships. The facts are that in sports, even the best teams have off days. That doesn't mean they aren't good or we should just stop their seasons when they lose to a lesser team. And the problem with the BCS is it acts differently at the end of the season which is crap. It should be consistent throughout at least, and that means Michigan should not be #2 immediately after a loss.

Dont try to compare the pro game to college football.

There is parity in pro football.

College football is far away from parity.

Who said I was only trying to compare pro and college football. I said all other sports with playoffs. Nice try but your argument is still flawed. There are plenty of good 1 loss teams in college football and any of them legitimately deserve a shot at the NC.

Well you cant really compare different sports.

Try comparing it to Division I-AA, or Division II or Division III. Oh thats right if you did your theory would fail severely.

So you have no response?

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season.

Michigan didnt play a single Division I-AA team. Florida did.

Yes yes, but they played their share of weak teams where they had the obvious advantage. And FLA's divisional teams are all better than Michigans.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: austin316

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season. This is another ridiculous 'feature' of the BCS.

Um, the have played 3 teams ranked in the top 8

I got to add, when I say late in the season, I added that because if you play a DI-AA early in the season it wont hurt you nearly as much as playing them late in the season. Just ask Texas. It works this way because if you play a DI-AA and your closest opponents is playing a top 25 DI-A team, they will hop your sorry ass.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: austin316

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season. This is another ridiculous 'feature' of the BCS.

Um, the have played 3 teams ranked in the top 8

And the rest of their schedule? Look you cannot win this argument. It is totally subjective.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: austin316

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season. This is another ridiculous 'feature' of the BCS.

Um, the have played 3 teams ranked in the top 8

I got to add, when I say late in the season, I added that because if you play a DI-AA early in the season it wont hurt you nearly as much as playing them late in the season. Just ask Texas. It works this way because if you play a DI-AA and your closest opponents is playing a top 25 DI-A team, they will hop your sorry ass.

Yes this is true, but it's only part of the flawed BCS system. Your arguments work for the BCS but you ignore that the BCS system is flawed and determines a mythical NC game.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: brxndxn
UF only lost to the #2 (at the time) ranked team.. while USC lost to an unranked team.. WTF is USC ranked above UF?

What does "at the time" matter?

Does Clemson get a huge boost for beating (at the time) #9 Florida State?

they get a bigger boost than winning against an unranked team..

BTW, FL was ranked #3 last week.. Then, USC beats Cal and FL beats some unranked fodder by 62-0 and USC moves up in rank to take UF's spot.

I'm bitter.

Thats what happens when you play a Division I-AA team late in the season. Whoever decided to do that needs to be shot.

What difference does it make when the game is played? Michigan has plenty of creampuffs on their schedule which allowed them to be ranked highly all season.

Michigan didnt play a single Division I-AA team. Florida did.

Yes yes, but they played their share of weak teams where they had the obvious advantage. And FLA's divisional teams are all better than Michigans.

Yes but they played DI-A schools. Playing weak teams at the beginning of the season when almost everyone is playing weak teams doesnt hurt you, because everyone is playing considerably weak teams. Late in the season, most people are playing their tougher opponents, so yes a win vs a DI-AA team will cost you if the team ranked right behind you is playing a top 25 DI-A team.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Wreckem

If USC played Arkansas today, they would so get f'in owned.

Sweet.

Next year, the BCS title should be decided by zero games and your one-man poll.

My whole point is, all these people argue USC beat Arkansas, which was a ****** team to start the season.

If USC wants the benifits(which they get under the BCS system), of beating an unranked team at the time who is now #6, they need to take the egg of losing to an unranked team. Which thankfully they are. Anyone who loses to an unranked team does NOT deserve a title shot. Period. Its laughable. However if USC wins vs ND and UCLA, they are in.

Ok, in the BCS world your argument tries to make sense. I see the pt. you are trying to make. But the real point is that the BCS system is crap. I can dismantle this argument 100 times by showing you teams that lost to lesser teams but went on to win championships. The facts are that in sports, even the best teams have off days. That doesn't mean they aren't good or we should just stop their seasons when they lose to a lesser team. And the problem with the BCS is it acts differently at the end of the season which is crap. It should be consistent throughout at least, and that means Michigan should not be #2 immediately after a loss.

Dont try to compare the pro game to college football.

There is parity in pro football.

College football is far away from parity.

Who said I was only trying to compare pro and college football. I said all other sports with playoffs. Nice try but your argument is still flawed. There are plenty of good 1 loss teams in college football and any of them legitimately deserve a shot at the NC.

Well you cant really compare different sports.

Try comparing it to Division I-AA, or Division II or Division III. Oh thats right if you did your theory would fail severely.

So you have no response?

No that was my response. Rarely in I-AA, or II, or III do teams win their division title after falling to a lesser team.