Should Utah be co-champions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> The Red Zone!



Message

micvik -> Should Utah be co-champions? (1/18/2009 12:38:50 AM)

Oklahoma and Florida can battle for the BCS. But we've already crowned the true national champ.

"Argue with this, please. I beg you. Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero. Beat four ranked teams. Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks. The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season. The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place."
-Rick Reilly


I wouldn't vote for them because Florida had the stronger strength of schedule but it does bring up major issues with the current system. Imagine if say Alabama had beat Florida(it was a close game) then 'Bama would have gotten into the title game over Utah despite having a weaker schedule.



Marauders -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (1/18/2009 12:54:38 AM)

There is a BCS champion.  There is no true national champion.

The system isn't very good at all.



quixian -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (1/18/2009 4:46:30 AM)

If I had seen enough Utah games to make an informed decision, I'd know better as to whether or not I'd vote for 'em. It was a down year in many of the major conferences, either during the regular season or the bowl season, which makes it difficult to figure out how Utah would compare to an undefeated UF, USC, OK, or Texas.

The NCAA either needs to go to a playoff system or scrap the BCS altogether, going back to the traditional bowl invites (ie, Rose Bowl = PAC-10 Champ vs Big Ten Champ) every season, complete with a FULL traditional schedule of games on New Year's Day instead of the watered down bowl season we get today. One of the NCAA's excuses about avoiding a playoff is to uphold tradition, yet we get meaningless bowl games spread out over 3 weeks with virtually NO traditional matchups.



Bobolini -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (1/19/2009 5:36:23 PM)

Can't argue! I went to U of U for 2 years (graduated from Weber State later on). Been watching them since the early 80's! Go Utes!



mbsports -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (1/19/2009 8:52:43 PM)

I seriously despise the BCS system because it does cause nothing but issues and the solutions are so entirely workable that the arguments for the validity of the BCS just don't cut it with me.  This is about the student athletes and they deserve to at the very least be able to contend for the title and this season I feel Utah should have had that opportunity. 

I also feel very strongly that the traditions of the Bowls must have a place and I don't want to see a 16 team playoff either as I don't think it adds to the equation at all.  The purpose of any system should be to crown a true national champion and I think the way you do that is to start with this:

First of all did you win your conference?  If you didn't win your conference you're not the national champion.   Some would argue that this season Texas and/or Texas Tech had a legit claim but neither won their conference.  I will grant that how the Big 12 seeds teams to get to their conference final is flawed but I feel that this is a secondary argument rather then a primary.  The big issue is how you win the national title and part of that needs to be winning your conference in my opinion. 

If that had been used this year we would have come out of the regular season with Troy, Boise State, Florida, USC, Buffalo, Utah, Cincinnati, Penn State, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and East Carolina eligible.  So sorry Texas, Ohio State, etc etc.  Next time win your conference, but if you don't do that you're not in the running. 

Part 2 is where we have to start figuring out who should be playing for a national title and in my formula we can start eliminating teams and this can be done via the BCS Rankings to determine which teams can for the national title.  In my first formula The Big Bowls would host de facto national quarter-final games and then following week we have the national title.  This year we would have had the following seeding of these teams.  #1. Oklahoma #2. Florida #3. USC #4. Utah #5. Penn State #6. Boise State #7. Cincinnati #8. Virginia Tech

I would like to see the traditional Bowl Rivalries protected at least somewhat as well but I believe it shouldn't be rigid enough so that common sense does not prevail.  For instance the Orange Bowl traditionally would have had Ciny vs. Virginia Tech but I would have set the bowls up as follows by allowing historical matchups to be broken when they result in a team leaping more then 2 spots in seeding.  Here's how I would have set this year's matchups:

#1. Oklahoma vs. #8 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl
#2. Florida vs. #7 Cincinnati in the Sugar Bowl
#3. USC vs. #5 Penn State in the Rose Bowl
#4. Utah vs. #6 Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl

From there this year I expect you'd have had Oklahoma, Florida, USC, and Utah advance from there we have seeding 1-4 and it would have been Oklahoma versus Utah and Florida versus USC.  I would have liked to have seen how that would play out.  My concern would be that by the time we get past that Florida has played 12 regular games, a conference final, a bowl game, a semi-final, and a final.  That's 16 games which I think might be a bit much.  We've seen teams play 14 games and I just don't think it has hurt the players.

I have a second version that is the traditional "and 1" argument but even then if we had 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 with winning your conference a required accomplishment we have an issue with Boise State being undefeated and getting left out.  I feel funny about a team that wins every game being sent to the Poinsettia Bowl. Granted Boise State lost to Texas Christian, but it still makes things feel a little incomplete and sketchy when you can win out and still not be involved in the national title picture.  Hence I like my And 2 model a little better right now, which can accomodate an independent<Notre Dame> if they are ranked in the final standings ahead of a conference champion. 

There just isn't a perfect solution but I think when you start requiring teams to win their conference and a bowl game you're on the right path. Unfortunately I'm prepared to see another 5-10 years of this nonsense before anyone gets serious about making the system work in a more intelligent fashion then what we have today.






Great White -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (1/20/2009 5:42:12 PM)

micvik,

Since, there is no unbiased organization(s) coming together to set all programs' schedules, based upon the main factor of programs' previous year's performance, there is no true playoff and, of course, conferences have BS tie-breaking procedures I have no idea who is the true Champion and thus who was deserving of playing for The Championship. It is my belief that programs like Utah, USC and other programs, in such perceivable weak conferences, are given a huge advantage (making their tough -for them- scheduled games a lot easier). With saying that, I always go with the best Florida program (either: Miami, FSU or Florida), every year; plus in my response to Rick Reilly stupid article* the following is my response.

Without a chance to play in a playoff for The Championship, simply because one loses a single-game or a single game or even having a better record separates them from the championship participants, I believe that some programs take the bowls as a holiday and seniors worry about taking everything in and preparing to audition for The NFL (The All-American, Senior, East West Shriners' and etc Bowls and The NFL's combine) and superstar juniors worry about their decisions about leaving for The NFL and if they have already decided to do so preparing to audition for The NFL. I would be, in their shoes; let alone if I was their age.

Heck, if I was in their situation I would never be quiet and if I was a senior I would skip all the bowl activitives and game, and focus on my audition to The NFL. Might upset a lot of people, most definitely SI and ESPN, but there needs to be athletes standing up.

Of course, this applies to Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech and etc; but does not mean they all will lose. Heck, some of those programs are facing programs under the same frustrations and/or their seniors play less of a role and superstars are few of the juniors. Utah and other programs would not have the same amount of players doing the same, even though they fall under this frustration, because they are treated as lesser. Even I treat them as lesser, USC and others, because they play such a weak schedule, including conferences schedules. Of course, that is all a belief, because there is no unbiased organization(s) coming together to set all programs' schedules, there is no true playoff and, of course, conferences have BS tie-breaking procedures.

*-nothing new, SI is full of writers (Mr. King and etc) who know next to nothing, except to be biased (especially against those outside the box/culture; perfect example was Miami, inter-cities, minorities of the 80s- wanted the program punished like Southern Methodist), controversial (which is good when there is a controversy, especially when it is being ignored) and entertaining over quality (which is never good, except always profitable).



mudrick -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (2/1/2009 3:56:58 PM)

I can't disagree with much said by anyone here.  But there is no simple solution, or it would have been done years ago.

The most popular solution is similar to what "mbsports" put up.  And i've heard similar to it for over a decade now, but it will never happen.

For example, the people that run the Rose Bowl will never agree to being a quarter final or semi final game.  Never going to happen.  They are not going to spend millions advertising a game with a 5 seed playing a 4 or a 7/2 or anything like that.  That means less fans in the seats.  This is why it has never been done.  They will never agree to it.



Marauders -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (2/1/2009 5:39:43 PM)

The Rose Bowl has the traditional powerhouse conferences of the Big 10 and Pac 10 represented. That's what they get when they don't have the BCS Championship game. Wouldn't it be better if the game actually meant more than just that game? If it was part of a playoff series, one would think that it would attract more fans, more television coverage, and more revenue.

In any case, it would be moot what the Rose Bowl committee thinks if the NCAA mandated a championship series with bowl games included.

As I stated above, Bowl Games +2 is a relatively simple way to do it with the small conference contenders having an extra seeded game between them and the big conferences having a conference championship game for each of them. It maintains the bowl game tradition.

The other way to do it would be to have the playoffs first, and then seed the bowl games with a rotation of the championship game. The problem with this is that the bowl games actually have less meaning, and it would likely be an end to the traditional conferences being part of certain bowl games.



mudrick -> RE: Should Utah be co-champions? (2/1/2009 8:25:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders

The Rose Bowl has the traditional powerhouse conferences of the Big 10 and Pac 10 represented. That's what they get when they don't have the BCS Championship game. Wouldn't it be better if the game actually meant more than just that game? If it was part of a playoff series, one would think that it would attract more fans, more television coverage, and more revenue.

In any case, it would be moot what the Rose Bowl committee thinks if the NCAA mandated a championship series with bowl games included.

As I stated above, Bowl Games +2 is a relatively simple way to do it with the small conference contenders having an extra seeded game between them and the big conferences having a conference championship game for each of them. It maintains the bowl game tradition.

The other way to do it would be to have the playoffs first, and then seed the bowl games with a rotation of the championship game. The problem with this is that the bowl games actually have less meaning, and it would likely be an end to the traditional conferences being part of certain bowl games.



No, the Rose Bowl committee is happy with the way things are now. How could it get any better for them? They'd be taking a risk because it could only get worse. Believe me, this idea has been thrown around for years now. If they liked it, it would have been done already.

Also, rotating big games is not good either. If the bowls are already big games every year, why would they agree to rotate?

The big bowls will never agree to semi finals or quarter final games. They fear it would spread out the fan base. These big bowl games really can't do much better, they would be foolish to change. That is the problem.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125