This bowl season exposes the BCS (again)

[SDK46]

hawkeyescott: "So you think even with Iowa's schedule TCU would have still went 12-0?"

Hard to say.

But they beat Wisconsin, something we didn't do. Or Ohio State, or 5 other Big-10 teams.

TCU had the opportunity on the field to prove it could get the job done. And it did.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Northwestern and Indiana are not good in the big ten but would be in the top 3-4 in the Mountain West. It has everything to do with the Grind. If we are talking about good teams Iowa played many Wisky, MSU, OSU, NU, Arizona, PSU that is six right there I would even throw in Michigan and ISU because both those team would have finished with 8-9 wins in the Mountain West. It has everything to do with the grind because even when you play a bad big ten team they are better than 80% of the teams TCU plays. And don't bring up Utah, they were rated at the time they played and are not now because they weren't that good.

You are blinded because you want your opinion to be right, like everyone else only my argument has more merit than yours.

Oregon beating OSU, Stanford, USC, Arizona, and ASU just those 5 games is more impressive than anything TCU did.

Utah might not have been that good but they did put up almost 70 on an ISU team that you think could win 8-9 games in the MWC. People keep talking about the grind of the B10 schedule but how do you know any B10 team is any good? Nobody plays tough non conference schedules any more. Wisconsin didn't look very good in the non conf portion of their schedule, they barely beat a bad ASU team at home, we lost to Arizona, Ohio St's best win was a horribly overrated Miami team. What was the best B10 non conference win? Mich over UConn or ND? And after what the B10 did yesterday I see no reason why people should just automatically assume a B10 schedule is so tough. The "grind of the conference season" argument is just what people resort to when they have other logical argument and just want to rely on a conference's reputation instead of on the field results.

 

[tm3308]

I probably should have said:

People think a playoff would give these minor-league teams a better shot at winning the championship, but I think it will only make it more likely that one of the same top teams that always win it will win it. Winning two or three in a row in a playoff system would be tough. Little-league teams like Boise would have a better chance with the BCS or old voter system.

So what if it increases the odds that an AQ team wins it every year? It gives the non-AQ's the opportunity to prove it on the field. It eliminates the debate. I'm not sure that TCU or Boise would win it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them make the championship game in an 8-team playoff.

 

[HawkI101]

Utah might not have been that good but they did put up almost 70 on an ISU team that you think could win 8-9 games in the MWC. People keep talking about the grind of the B10 schedule but how do you know any B10 team is any good? Nobody plays tough non conference schedules any more. Wisconsin didn't look very good in the non conf portion of their schedule, they barely beat a bad ASU team at home, we lost to Arizona, Ohio St's best win was a horribly overrated Miami team. What was the best B10 non conference win? Mich over UConn or ND? And after what the B10 did yesterday I see no reason why people should just automatically assume a B10 schedule is so tough. The "grind of the conference season" argument is just what people resort to when they have other logical argument and just want to rely on a conference's reputation instead of on the field results.

The "grind" is not something people fall back on, it is the truth. Ask anyone who actually played a big time sport in a BCS Conference. You can relate this to any level of any sport.

It is the same as high school sports, for example, if Ankeny goes 6-3 in football and Dallas Center goes undefeated are you going to tell me that Dallas Center is better than them, no because they don't play the level of competition.

Was UNI a better team than Kansas last year when they beat them in the tourney, a playoff doesn't necessarily give you the best team either. Championship series almost always weed out the best teams but one and done playoffs don't.

 

[DwayneTwill]

So what if it increases the odds that an AQ team wins it every year? It gives the non-AQ's the opportunity to prove it on the field. It eliminates the debate. I'm not sure that TCU or Boise would win it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them make the championship game in an 8-team playoff.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[olivecourt]

The "grind" is not something people fall back on, it is the truth. Ask anyone who actually played a big time sport in a BCS Conference. You can relate this to any level of any sport.

It is the same as high school sports, for example, if Ankeny goes 6-3 in football and Dallas Center goes undefeated are you going to tell me that Dallas Center is better than them, no because they don't play the level of competition.

Was UNI a better team than Kansas last year when they beat them in the tourney, a playoff doesn't necessarily give you the best team either. Championship series almost always weed out the best teams but one and done playoffs don't.

So if I ask someone who plays in a BCS conference if only BCS conferences should get to play for the national title, they'll say yes? What a surprise.

If this is just like high school sports, as you say, then note that Ankeny and Dallas Center don't play in the same classification. It would be like saying that St. John's in Minnesota is better than LSU because they went undefeated. No one's making that argument. But imagine how stupid it would be if Iowa high school football only let the CIML Iowa and Central dvision champions play for the state title? They would be savaged, because that's inherently stupid and unfair. But it's what division I college football does every year.

Look at the history of the Final Four vs. the history of the BCS and tell me which process does a better job crowning the best teams.

 

[FCAS]

I think a Big10 fan has to be careful when using the "weekly grind" argument. As an example, I think going through an SEC schedule is significantly harder than going through the Big10. If you're going to live by the weekly grind argument, there is a strong case for picking a one-loss SEC team over an undefeated Big10 team for the BCS title game.

 

[HawkI101]

So if I ask someone who plays in a BCS conference if only BCS conferences should get to play for the national title, they'll say yes? What a surprise.

If this is just like high school sports, as you say, then note that Ankeny and Dallas Center don't play in the same classification. It would be like saying that St. John's in Minnesota is better than LSU because they went undefeated. No one's making that argument. But imagine how stupid it would be if Iowa high school football only let the CIML Iowa and Central dvision champions play for the state title? They would be savaged, because that's inherently stupid and unfair. But it's what division I college football does every year.

Look at the history of the Final Four vs. the history of the BCS and tell me which process does a better job crowning the best teams.

I would say that the best team is crowned national champion in football as much if not more than the final four. I would say that the best team in basketball only wins the national title 50% of the time. There have been a lot of times that the best team doesn't even make the bball national title game. You telling me that Butler was the second best team in bball last year? No way!

In sports the best team does not always win the title at any sport any level, pee-wee through pro. I would say the BCS does the best job of making sure the best teams are playing for the title. Just because you would like to see a playoff doesn't mean it is crowning the best team as champion.

 

[DwayneTwill]

I think a Big10 fan has to be careful when using the "weekly grind" argument. As an example, I think going through an SEC schedule is significantly harder than going through the Big10. If you're going to live by the weekly grind argument, there is a strong case for picking a one-loss SEC team over an undefeated Big10 team for the BCS title game.

SEC > Big Ten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MWC

 

[SDK46]

I would say that the best team is crowned national champion in football as much if not more than the final four. I would say that the best team in basketball only wins the national title 50% of the time. There have been a lot of times that the best team doesn't even make the bball national title game. You telling me that Butler was the second best team in bball last year? No way!

In sports the best team does not always win the title at any sport any level, pee-wee through pro. I would say the BCS does the best job of making sure the best teams are playing for the title. Just because you would like to see a playoff doesn't mean it is crowning the best team as champion.

Irrelevent point.

The point is....the BB tourney gives teams the chance, on the court, to prove its mettle.

The BCS uses two biased human polls and an incomplete computer poll, shutting out everybody else. Stupid.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

SEC > Big Ten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MWC

And you're basing this on? The Big Ten's 0-1 head to head record with the MWC? What B10 win is the most impressive this season? What non conference win by a B10 team really proves that yeah this team is actually good and doesn't just play in a weak conference?

 

[SDK46]

SEC > Big Ten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MWC

Based on??

This year's bowls? OK.

What else?

 

[Iowafarmgirl]

Based on??

This year's bowls? OK.

What else?

Well, let's look at the top and the bottom. The Big 10 has EIGHT teams who won 7 or more games. The MWC has 4. Let's look at the bottom. The MWC has FOUR teams which won 3 or fewer. The Big 10 has one.

The MWC has three teams that could legitimately compete with a Big 10 team on any day; TCU, Utah, and Air Force. The Big 10 has one team that would fail to compete in the MWC, Minnesota.

My point here is that while the MWC has one really good team and two pretty good teams, the rest is garbage. Wyoming, BYU, CSU, and UNLV are all complete jokes right now. There is, literally, no comparing the two conferences in football strength. It's no contest.

 

[DwayneTwill]

Well, let's look at the top and the bottom. The Big 10 has EIGHT teams who won 7 or more games. The MWC has 4. Let's look at the bottom. The MWC has FOUR teams which won 3 or fewer. The Big 10 has one.

The MWC has three teams that could legitimately compete with a Big 10 team on any day; TCU, Utah, and Air Force. The Big 10 has one team that would fail to compete in the MWC, Minnesota.

My point here is that while the MWC has one really good team and two pretty good teams, the rest is garbage. Wyoming, BYU, CSU, and UNLV are all complete jokes right now. There is, literally, no comparing the two conferences in football strength. It's no contest.

Based on this.

 

[olivecourt]

Well, let's look at the top and the bottom. The Big 10 has EIGHT teams who won 7 or more games. The MWC has 4. Let's look at the bottom. The MWC has FOUR teams which won 3 or fewer. The Big 10 has one.

The MWC has three teams that could legitimately compete with a Big 10 team on any day; TCU, Utah, and Air Force. The Big 10 has one team that would fail to compete in the MWC, Minnesota.

My point here is that while the MWC has one really good team and two pretty good teams, the rest is garbage. Wyoming, BYU, CSU, and UNLV are all complete jokes right now. There is, literally, no comparing the two conferences in football strength. It's no contest.

First of all, those numbers are incorrect. The MWC has five teams that won seven or more games. Here are their standings:

TCU 8-0 13-0 Utah 7-1 10-3 San Diego State 5-3 9-4 Air Force 5-3 9-4 Brigham Young 5-3 7-6 Colorado State 2-6 3-9 UNLV 2-6 2-11 New Mexico 1-7 1-11 Wyoming 1-7 3-9

You leave San Diego State off your list of legitimate teams, which I don't get at all. They played at Missouri in September and lost 27-24 on a 60+ yard touchdown pass with 51 seconds to go. They didn't lose a game by more than 4 points all season.

Yes, the MWC has four bad teams, including New Mexico, which might have been the worst team in division I. But the Big Ten had three teams that were as bad as any they've ever had. Here are the nonconference wins for Minnesota, Indiana, and Purdue: Western Illinois (FCS), Ball State, Middle Tennessee State, Towson (FCS), Western Kentucky, Akron, Arkansas State. That's it. Minnesota lost to South Dakota (FCS) and Northern Illinois; Purdue lost to Toledo. Indiana gave up 83 points to Wisconsin. Even Austin Peay held the Badgers to 70.

You're telling me that Indiana, Minnesota, and Purdue constituted part of a weekly grind? Give me a break. Those should have been guaranteed Ws for any team with a pulse, and the fact that they weren't only demonstrates the mediocrity of the Big Ten this year (yes, including Iowa).

 

[HawkI101]

First of all, those numbers are incorrect. The MWC has five teams that won seven or more games. Here are their standings:

TCU 8-0 13-0 Utah 7-1 10-3 San Diego State 5-3 9-4 Air Force 5-3 9-4 Brigham Young 5-3 7-6 Colorado State 2-6 3-9 UNLV 2-6 2-11 New Mexico 1-7 1-11 Wyoming 1-7 3-9

You leave San Diego State off your list of legitimate teams, which I don't get at all. They played at Missouri in September and lost 27-24 on a 60+ yard touchdown pass with 51 seconds to go. They didn't lose a game by more than 4 points all season.

Yes, the MWC has four bad teams, including New Mexico, which might have been the worst team in division I. But the Big Ten had three teams that were as bad as any they've ever had. Here are the nonconference wins for Minnesota, Indiana, and Purdue: Western Illinois (FCS), Ball State, Middle Tennessee State, Towson (FCS), Western Kentucky, Akron, Arkansas State. That's it. Minnesota lost to South Dakota (FCS) and Northern Illinois; Purdue lost to Toledo. Indiana gave up 83 points to Wisconsin. Even Austin Peay held the Badgers to 70.

You're telling me that Indiana, Minnesota, and Purdue constituted part of a weekly grind? Give me a break. Those should have been guaranteed Ws for any team with a pulse, and the fact that they weren't only demonstrates the mediocrity of the Big Ten this year (yes, including Iowa).

The fact is the people can spew out all the numbers they want. If you think that the MWC is a good football conference then I would seriously question your knowledge of football.

You can not look at numbers to justify the argument because the teams the MWC play are not as good as the Big Ten so any of your numbers are going to be skewed.

Fact = MWC < than all BCS Conferences. TCU would not have won any BCS conference this year, except for MAYBE the Big East.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

The fact is the people can spew out all the numbers they want. If you think that the MWC is a good football conference then I would seriously question your knowledge of football.

You can not look at numbers to justify the argument because the teams the MWC play are not as good as the Big Ten so any of your numbers are going to be skewed.

Fact = MWC < than all BCS Conferences. TCU would not have won any BCS conference this year, except for MAYBE the Big East.

Exactly. There is no way TCU will compete with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. The Badgers will blow them off the line of scrimmage. Come Jan 1st, TCU will learn what Big Ten football is all about.


Whoops.

 

[HawkI101]

Exactly. There is no way TCU will compete with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. The Badgers will blow them off the line of scrimmage. Come Jan 1st, TCU will learn what Big Ten football is all about.


Whoops.

Who said that. I picked TCU to beat Wisconsin, I am in first place in two pools. Everyone in the country knew that TCU could compete with and beat Wisconsin in a one game scenario. That is not the argument. Now let them play OSU next Saturday, then Iowa the saturday after that and see how they do. They may win all of them my money is that they don't.

 

[olivecourt]

The fact is the people can spew out all the numbers they want. If you think that the MWC is a good football conference then I would seriously question your knowledge of football.

You can not look at numbers to justify the argument because the teams the MWC play are not as good as the Big Ten so any of your numbers are going to be skewed.

You should talk to Iowafarmgirl and DwayneTwill then, because they were the one who brought up a statistical argument about wins and losses. I was just pointing out that their numbers weren't even correct.

I'm not sure if you took the time to read my post, but the main thing I did was point out how bad the bottom of the Big Ten was-- and that in fact statistics like Indiana's 5-7 record were actually pretty deceiving because they didn't beat anyone with a pulse and gave up 83 points to Wisconsin. I don't think it's "spewing numbers" to point out that those three teams were freaking terrible and would have been terrible regardless of what conference you put them in.

Fact = MWC < than all BCS Conferences. TCU would not have won any BCS conference this year, except for MAYBE the Big East.

If you really want to defend the BCS, you'd be better off not mentioning the Big East. TCU would have destroyed that conference, much like Cincinnati did last year. Their conference champion lost to Temple. Utah, a team TCU beat by 40, beat Pittsburgh, which tied for the best record in the Big East.

How about the ACC? Their champion managed to lose to Boise State and James Madison, and then ran the table in conference play. Awesome. Although they did survive the "grind" that is Duke, Virginia, and Wake Forest. Well played, Hokies.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Who said that. I picked TCU to beat Wisconsin, I am in first place in two pools. Everyone in the country knew that TCU could compete with and beat Wisconsin in a one game scenario. That is not the argument. Now let them play OSU next Saturday, then Iowa the saturday after that and see how they do. They may win all of them my money is that they don't.

Using your logic, you can make the argument that no Big Ten would be able to compete in the SEC. How would Ohio St do if they had to play LSU, then Alabama then Florida? Ohio St has played one good team all year and they got beat pretty soundly by them. I think TCU would win the Big East and ACC and finish either first or second in the B12, B10 or Pac-10. If Michigan St can win 11 games in the B10 pretty sure TCU could as well.