• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is There Any Doubt Okla St Will Be #2?

DeacMan said:
Why is a 6-6 game an "ugly" snoozer. You had to the two best defenses in the country on display.

By contrast Okie State lost in spectacular fashion - allowing a shitty team to rattle off 24 or more unanswered points to be upset.

Again I'm amazed so many people think Okie State got jobbed. How about Stanford? At least they lost to Oregon.
Click to expand...

When you consider that outside of that game LSU averaged 42 PPG and Bama averaged 39 PPG it's pretty astonishing how good those defenses are.
 
WRS said:
When you consider that outside of that game LSU averaged 42 PPG and Bama averaged 39 PPG it's pretty astonishing how good those defenses are.
Click to expand...

Or how terrible their offenses played that day.
 
A little of both. Imo both offenses had multiple plays that they could and should have capitalized on. The rematch will almost certainly be more high scoring.
 
Here's what should have happened this year in a playoff.

Seeds (BCS conference winners get auto bids, earn higher seeds; wild cards and seeds based on BCS standings)

1. LSU
2. OK State
3. Oregon
4. Wisconsin
5. Clemson
6. WVU
7. Alabama
8. Stanford
9. Arkansas
10. Boise State
11. Kansas State
12. South Carolina



Round One

Byes
LSU
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Wisconsin

1. South Carolina (12) at Clemson (5)
2. K-State (11) at WVU (6)
3. Boise State (10) at Alabama (7)
4. Arkansas (9) at Stanford (8)

Round Two

Winner Game 4 at LSU
Winner Game 3 at OK State
Winner Game 2 at Oregon
Winner Game 1 at Wisconsin

National Semifinal (higher seed hosts)

Final (neutral site)

I'm sure that I screwed something up.
 
Take that top 8, play first round on Dec 25th and 26th(2 each day) at higher seed, semifinals on Jan 2nd and championship on Jan 9th is what I would do.
 
DirtySouthDeacon said:
You can argue SEC network all you want, but LSU beat everyone with a ridiculous OOC schedule as well. Also you cant argue the the last five BCS champs have come from the SEC against the "best of the rest."
Click to expand...

Yeah you can. If we had a plus one in 2007, then I think the national champions is USC. They could have beat Florida that year, and imo, had the better schedule. The SEC is rarely on the shit end of one of these scenarios. Auburn is the only one that comes to mind.
 
I want a conference tournament of champions. At-large invites diminish the season - esp conference championships - and concentrates attention/talent in a few conferences. (Sorry 'Bama, your LSU loss was very meaningful). Give me the Top 8 conference champs. The rest can play meaningless exhibition bowl games they do now. If you want to play for the NATIONAL championship, you need to win your conference first.
 
One thing that's been on my mind during this process: was the LSU-Alabama game (the "game of the century") actually meaningless? My thought is that it would have been meaningful if the score was lopsided enough, but even that may be generous. Nonetheless, as things happened, that game turned out to be meaningless precisely because it was close and went to overtime.

Point-shaving penalties notwithstanding, it's a cool thought-experiment. In theory, teams in that scenario should collude to keep their game close and just be mediocre. Doing such would ensure a greater minimum outcome for both sides, and before the game is played, a risk-averse coach would accept this "greater minimum" knowing that it could lead to a rematch in the title game. In reality, of course they'd want to kick the other's ass and improve their own overall position.
 
awaken said:
I want a conference tournament of champions. At-large invites diminish the season - esp conference championships - and concentrates attention/talent in a few conferences. (Sorry 'Bama, your LSU loss was very meaningful). Give me the Top 8 conference champs. The rest can play meaningless exhibition bowl games they do now. If you want to play for the NATIONAL championship, you need to win your conference first.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that not only are conferences vastly different in quality, but divisions within them are as well (and they have unbalanced schedules), this doesn't seem reasonable.
 
siff said:
Given the fact that not only are conferences vastly different in quality, but divisions within them are as well (and they have unbalanced schedules), this doesn't seem reasonable.
Click to expand...

True, the conferences are different in quality today, but I believe that would actually even out over time as good recruits consider playing in for a championship at non-traditional powers. This is more fair to the Boise's, TCU's, etc of the world.

Yes, this plan would totally screw up the mega conference trend, and I'm fine with that, too. How big conferences are and how they determine their champion is their business, and not my problem.
 
awaken said:
True, the conferences are different in quality today, but I believe that would actually even out over time as good recruits consider playing in for a championship at non-traditional powers. This is more fair to the Boise's, TCU's, etc of the world.

Yes, this plan would totally screw up the mega conference trend, and I'm fine with that, too. How big conferences are and how they determine their champion is their business, and not my problem.
Click to expand...

How would you feel if this happened in basketball? It was once that way...and it was so unpopular that the NCAA tournament scrapped that format. I know that basketball and football are very different sports, but I'm not sure a team that loses one game in the top conference and loses a tiebreaker for its conference championship game (and therefore doesn't get an opportunity to make the playoff) should be excluded at the expense of a 12-0 Conference USA team.
 
awaken said:
True, the conferences are different in quality today, but I believe that would actually even out over time as good recruits consider playing in for a championship at non-traditional powers. This is more fair to the Boise's, TCU's, etc of the world.

Yes, this plan would totally screw up the mega conference trend, and I'm fine with that, too. How big conferences are and how they determine their champion is their business, and not my problem.
Click to expand...

This isn't about being "fair". What the fuck does being "fair" mean? And whatever it means, in this instance it fits your definition of "fair".
 
I'm aware basketball used to be like this, and believe at-larges cause more harm than good in football. The at-large's have really diminished the conference tournaments as many good teams are happy to lose and rest. Could you imagine that in a football conf championship? - LSU resting players, like pro teams do in week 16-17, against UGa bc they are going the the playoffs regardless. With 1 bid, the conf championships are de facto playoffs, so really 16 teams are considered. And, all games matter.

The at-larges are part of the mega-conference creation in that they think they can demand (and get) 2-3 bids. There are really about 64 viable D1 teams. Do you prefer 8 conferences of 8 (1 bid per conf), or 4 conferences of 16 (multiple bids per conf)? Keep in mind how this affects bball's home/home scheduling.

I know this is a pipe dream of mine; but this is what message boards are for.
 
awaken said:
I'm aware basketball used to be like this, and believe at-larges cause more harm than good in football. The at-large's have really diminished the conference tournaments as many good teams are happy to lose and rest. Could you imagine that in a football conf championship? - LSU resting players, like pro teams do in week 16-17, against UGa bc they are going the the playoffs regardless. With 1 bid, the conf championships are de facto playoffs, so really 16 teams are considered. And, all games matter.

The at-larges are part of the mega-conference creation in that they think they can demand (and get) 2-3 bids. There are really about 64 viable D1 teams. Do you prefer 8 conferences of 8 (1 bid per conf), or 4 conferences of 16 (multiple bids per conf)? Keep in mind how this affects bball's home/home scheduling.

I know this is a pipe dream of mine; but this is what message boards are for.
Click to expand...

Has it ever occured to you that if there was a tournament, conferences might do away with their championship game. Regardless, it is FUCKING STUPID, to say the Big 12 or SEC deserves the same amount of teams as the Big East. They don't. Not historically and probably not ever. And you will NEVER get a college football playoff implemented if you try to hold to your "dream". Because the big league schools won't go for it unless they see they have a path to get into the event save for winning their conference.
 
I have an honest question regarding SOS calculations, because that is what's being used regarding the Big XII in the Big XII/SEC debates: the Big XII played 3 teams who were ranked at the end of the year OOC (FSU/TCU/Arkansas) and went 2-1 in those games. They finished the year with 1 win OOC against a school who finished the year with a winning record from a BCS Conference (FSU).

Meanwhile, the SEC went 4-3 against teams who finished the year ranked.

I think the Big XII was deep this year, but, how does Sagarin etc calculate SOS if not by OOC games? I'm genuinely curious.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
I have an honest question regarding SOS calculations, because that is what's being used regarding the Big XII in the Big XII/SEC debates: the Big XII played 3 teams who were ranked at the end of the year OOC (FSU/TCU/Arkansas) and went 2-1 in those games. They finished the year with 1 win OOC against a school who finished the year with a winning record from a BCS Conference (FSU).

Meanwhile, the SEC went 4-3 against teams who finished the year ranked.

I think the Big XII was deep this year, but, how does Sagarin etc calculate SOS if not by OOC games? I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

That's a huge part of the problem. They're not required to disclose their formulas, not even to BCS officials, and they don't. Only one formula has been disclosed (Wolfe, I think) and people found data input errors that affecting the rankings - nevermind the make-up of the formulas. Jeff Sagarin could have a dart board at home with 120 names on it and 25 darts as far as anyone knows.
 
DeacinBama said:
That's a huge part of the problem. They're not required to disclose their formulas, not even to BCS officials, and they don't. Only one formula has been disclosed (Wolfe, I think) and people found data input errors that affecting the rankings - nevermind the make-up of the formulas. Jeff Sagarin could have a dart board at home with 120 names on it and 25 darts as far as anyone knows.
Click to expand...

Sagarin has OSU's schedule being more difficult than LSU's. I'm not sure how any objective system can say that:

Oregon (neutral) #5
NWST
@Miss St
@WVU #23
Kentucky
FL
@ Tennessee
Auburn #25
@Alabama #2
WKU
@Ole Miss
Arkansas #6
Georgia (neutral) #16
(used final BCS rankings)

Is easier than:
Louisiana-Lafayette
Arizona
@Tulsa
@A&M
Kansas
@Texas #24
@Missouri
Baylor #12
Kansas State #8
@Texas Tech
@Iowa State
Oklahoma #14

You're trying to tell me, objectively, playing teams that finished BY THE BCS OWN CALCULATIONS: @2, 5 (neutral), 6, 16 (neutral), @23, 25 is somehow easier than: 8, 12, 14, @24? How is that even possible?

This isn't even supposed to be an SEC/Big XII thing, but how in the world does an objective system which calculates SOS determine OSU's schedule listed there is more difficult than LSU's? /stating the obvious/ but something is seriously strange about the calculations.
 
The entire schedule matters, not just the toughest four or five games. Just taking a simple average of the ratings of the opponents should give you a decent idea. A big reason is that the Big 12 plays nine conference games.

I don't know about a lot of the computers used, but I will vouch for Sagarin's model.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top