FanDuel - WFBC

December 02, 2007

Oklahoma crushes Missouri,: Pittsburgh upsets West Virginia, LSU edges Tennessee, Ohio State celebrates, and the folks at the BCS prepare to get in the fetal position and crawl under their desks.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia to football at 06:21 AM - 85 comments

BCS Selection Policies and Procedures.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:22 AM on December 02

Holy sheep shit Batman, here we go again! Gee, let's hope the Schmuckeyes don't move up, let's hope Georgia moves up, but, but, I believe the Warriors on the big island should be playing for the Sears Trophy. But guess what?! They will get hosed, yes they will. Aren't they the only undefeated team in Div. 1? Hmmm......

posted by Marko2020 at 07:21 AM on December 02

Hawaii v. Kansas baby!!!!

posted by drumdance at 08:21 AM on December 02

It should be LSU v. USC. Or Oklahoma v. Georgia. Or Kansas v. West Virginia. Or Virginia Tech v. Ohio State. Or Hawaii v. Kansas. Me v. You.

posted by NoMich at 08:28 AM on December 02

It's the same thing all the time, each and every year. The "National Championship" is decided by ridiculous polls that in no way, shape, or form can determine what team is truly the "best." And even if the two most-deserving teams make it to the final game, and one comes out and doesn't play its best, does that mean the most-deserving team is actually the champion? And I'm sick of the conferences that play a championship game whining they have to play an extra game. That was their choice, and they reap the financial benefits of that game. And this controversy wouldn't change if their was a playoff system, either, because then the arguments would revolve around who was seeded where, and who played who early on. It's all totally speculative and based on who plays well on a given day.

posted by dyams at 09:13 AM on December 02

I'm actually a reasonable fan of the BCS (or at least as close to one as there is, I think.) Most years the regular season is a fair-ish playoff. But this year... man. You could not have wished for a better, wilder, more chaotic scenario if you dislike the BCS. They should delay the human polls for a week so we can argue about it...

posted by tieguy at 09:14 AM on December 02

We don't even get a whole day. The BCS selection show is this evening at eight.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:22 AM on December 02

2007 will forever be remembered as the year of the choke.

posted by netbros at 09:40 AM on December 02

I vote for a Notre Dame-Duke rematch for the championship.

posted by urall cloolis at 09:58 AM on December 02

Congratulations to Okalhoma.

posted by budman13 at 10:43 AM on December 02

WOW! I go to one wedding reception on a Saturday night and this is what happens! Although, it's not a complete surprise, been happening all year. Will any team want to be ranked #1 or #2 from here on out? Its a good thing NCAA Football doesn't any silly playoffs. That would just confuse everyone.

posted by BoKnows at 10:50 AM on December 02

Thanks for the link to the BCS selection procedures, YYM, but it didn't say anything about slaughtering a goat and divining its entrails. I revel in the confusion engendered by not having any truly outstanding teams. Those who back LSU should look that they could easily have 4 losses, not 2. Ohio State has only 1 loss, but some say that the Big Ten is weak. Why should Oklahoma not merit more consideration after beating the number one team? In other words, WTF?

posted by Howard_T at 11:53 AM on December 02

Bowl projections from rivals.com.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:14 PM on December 02

As somebody who completely and unashamedly bandwagoned with Hawaii this season (I live in Hawaii but haven't paid much attention to the Warriors since they changed their name because coach June Jones didn't like the "connotations" of their previous name, the Rainbows), I was thrilled that they came back from 21-0 to win last night's game. As much as I've enjoyed the bragging rights this has afforded me, compare their season with USC's season. USC may have lost a few, but they weren't playing Podunk University, if you catch my drift. Hawaii absolutely deserves a bowl - and maybe even deserves a shot at the title - but it remains to be seen if they can truly roll with the big boys. A bowl victory over LSU, however, will make me a believer once and for all. I will officially convert from Bandwagoner to superfan and will even wear one of their ridiculously ugly "H" logo hats with pride.

posted by Joey Michaels at 12:54 PM on December 02

If you want college football to go to a playoff format then you should want Hawaii in the national title game this year. The big conferences would go nuts if Hawaii was in the title game. Would it be enough to make them dump the useless BCS system? I want a Playoff system, GO HAWAII !!!!!!!!

posted by jwhite613 at 01:08 PM on December 02

I'm with urall cloolis. Especially if Duke can somehow steal Paul Johnson away in time for the game.

posted by tieguy at 01:16 PM on December 02

Yeah, the only reason I can see that Hawaii isn't going to get a shot at the title is that the conferences have a monopoly, and the tastemakers at places like the Worldwide Leader can easily poo-pooh them away. (It's almost like the BCS is a clique with arbitrary made-up rules for inclusion, and a cool kids' table that other schools aren't allowed to sit at. Almost.) Show me a team that hasn't padded their record by playing Podunk U. Hawaii has played a few top teams this year just like everyone else, and beaten every single one of them.

posted by chicobangs at 01:32 PM on December 02

Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing their accomplishment. 12-0 is very impressive no matter whom you're playing. And they stomped several quality teams on the way to get there. However, look at the first half of Hawaii's season as compared to USC's. Granted USC ended up playing at least two teams (Notre Dame and Nebraska) who were in no way, shape or form playing up to the level that they did in the past, but who knew that would be the case when the season started? Also, I would love it if they had a chance at the National Championship. Absolutely love it. And I think they deserve it - weak schedule or no, they won all 12 games. While we've recently poo-poo'ed the fact that the classic undefeated Miami Dolphins line-up had a weak season, I don't think anybody claims they didn't deserve at a shot at the Superbowl just because their season wasn't the most difficult. No, the BCS system is broken, and if I point out that Hawaii's season was not quite as hard as USC's, it is not to diminish their accomplishment, but to point up the fact that it is virtually impossible to determine which of two teams is better unless they actually face each other on the field. I think Hawaii would have an excellent chance of beating any of the other top 12 teams - and vice versa. Until they get a chance to do that (and it seems like this will be against LSU), there will always be nay-sayers. This was the point I was sort of obliquely trying to make with the whole "I will move from being a bandwagoner to a superfan" thing. Obviously, I'd still be a bandwagoner, but (like many folks in the sport's world), I'd no longer be able to make any "strength of season" comments about them. In conclusion, "Go Warriors."

posted by Joey Michaels at 01:45 PM on December 02

they changed their name because coach June Jones didn't like the "connotations" of their previous name, the Rainbows In which case, June Jones ought to change his own name. (This reminds me of a friend from college whose name was considered too un-manly for rugby practice as a fresher, and was called 'Bruce' from that moment until leaving nearly a decade later with a doctorate.) Ohio State will, presumably, get elevated in spite of sitting on their arses during the sharp end of the season. Who's to say that a Big Ten championship game -- Ohio St. vs Illinois, on final standings -- wouldn't have been a repeat for Illinois, making the Buckeyes a two-loss team? I suppose one way out of the mess would be some set-in-stone 'BCS eligibility' criteria that may produce more candidates than berths some years, and less in other years. (In a country that were less schizoid about betting, you could just about formulate a BCS ranking via the handicappers.) But you either embrace the rough edges of win/lose in an asymmetrical system, which implies the knockout format, or you formulate something to provide a degree of clarity at the end of the regular season. The fact that leading NCAA coaches were making the case for their teams by phoning up SportsCenter last night rather than on the field is as unseemly an example of the system's brokenness. In related news, the third round draw of the FA Cup just took place.

posted by etagloh at 01:53 PM on December 02

Colt Brennan deserves the Heisman, just like his Warriors team deserves to play in the Nat. Champ. Game. But guess what folks, sorry! The big money conferences won't allow that, although if it did happen, it would lead to the hopeful demise of the "BCS". What the f...!? They deserve it, they won all of their games, it's not their fault they are way the hell over there. I am rooting for whomever plays Ohio State.

posted by Marko2020 at 02:04 PM on December 02

We should all band together and demand Hawaii deserves a shot. What do you say people? Let's Rage Against The BCS Machine!!!

posted by Marko2020 at 02:06 PM on December 02

Hawaii has played a few top teams this year just like everyone else, and beaten every single one of them. They have? Their only ranked opponent this season was Boise State.

posted by NoMich at 02:15 PM on December 02

Who's to say that a Big Ten championship game -- Ohio St. vs Illinois, on final standings -- wouldn't have been a repeat for Illinois, making the Buckeyes a two-loss team? I am not familiar with the tiebreaker system within the Big Ten but if head-to-head matchups are the number one tiebreaker a Big Ten championship game would be a rematch between Ohio State and Michigan.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:21 PM on December 02

Sagarin has Hawaii's SOS ranked 137th. Obviously, you can take your computer rankings with a grain of salt, but that is abominably bad. (I wish someone did something like KenPom's awesome stats database for college fb.)

posted by tieguy at 02:50 PM on December 02

YYM: I'm only going on what the Big Ten site tells me. (Like last year, I'm sympathetic to the 'it's not a bug, it's a feature', implying that the Bust Championship Series is all about the arguments, not the games. But I'm unsympathetic to the idea that USC and LSU have to be judged on games played two weeks after OSU's season ended.)

posted by etagloh at 02:59 PM on December 02

LSU is ranked no. 2 in the USA Today Coaches Poll, which is 1/3 of the BCS formula (the other 2/3, the Harris Poll and the computer rankings, won't be released until tonight). I suspect that this suggests it will be tOSU v. LSU for the title, but there's really no outcome at this point that would surprise me. As to Hawaii, I am somewhat sympathetic that they have a hard time scheduling decent out-of-conference competition. That said, I really don't think they deserve to be in consideration with a strength of schedule in the 130s. Of the contender 2-loss teams and 1-loss Kansas, LSU has the best strength of schedule. As Howard_T suggests above, LSU could be a 4-loss team, but they also could be a 1-loss or 0-loss team (both losses coming in triple overtime). I think LSU could probably beat just about any team in the top 10 and probably lose to any of them as well. It's just been that type of year.

posted by holden at 03:11 PM on December 02

I'm going to add one more point here. Post-season college games fulfil lots of different functions: they're a journey into the unknown for teams, a road trip for fans, a chance to settle arguments and raise other arguments, not least with regard to the NFL draft. In vaguely comparable situations -- for instance, Europe's top divisions -- there's no playoff, since the following year's Champions League operates with changed squads and next year's form. (That's why the UEFA Cup is interesting, because it often features teams on the up-slope.) In that context, there ought to be almost an 'all-star game' element to big bowl selection: have a vote, or put together a panel, and arrange games that aren't officially ranked, but have the advantage of promising great matchups. Heck, get the Vegas handicappers to do it.

posted by etagloh at 03:50 PM on December 02

But I'm unsympathetic to the idea that USC and LSU have to be judged on games played two weeks after OSU's season ended. USC didn't play a Pac 10 Championship game, that's just the way their schedule broke. They had byes, Ohio State didn't. Same goes for LSU, at least for last week's game. As for the discussion of a Big 10 Championship game, 2 things: (1) the discussion of who would be the #2 team is moot as it would be based on winners of currently non-existent divisions within the conference, and (2) with only 11 teams, the Big 10 is not allowed by NCAA rule to host a championship game.

posted by bender at 04:19 PM on December 02

I am all for a 16-team playoff (for like the hundredeth time) but at this point I would even settle for the "plus one" format where at least four teams would have a legitimate shot at the title. Hell four is better than two. Something like 1 versus 4 and 2 versus 3 using existing bowls and then the winners advance to a title game. And more importantly the idea may have a chance with the draconian selection committee as they could keep 99% of their ridiculous existing format. And I would love to get in on that Hawaii bandwagon, you gotta love the one guy who voted them first place whether they deserve it or not.

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 04:53 PM on December 02

that's just the way their schedule broke You dragged me back. Point is, this week's games (and last week's) have been, for all intents and purposes, single-elimination knockout rounds for the top-ranked sides. They're being treated as a playoff, dressed in the clothes of a pseudo-league. If the BCS is a pseudo-league, then shouldn't every team in the running be playing a post-Thanksgiving game with its collective cojones on the line? Still, I'm happy to toss shit at the conferences that want money-spinning championship games, and the Big 12 may find itself bitten on the arse by the Mizzou-OU result. you gotta love the one guy who voted them first place whether they deserve it or not. I sort of hope it was Ty Willingham, since he was probably one of the few voting coaches awake to watch Hawaii's last game live.

posted by etagloh at 05:19 PM on December 02

"(1) the discussion of who would be the #2 team is moot as it would be based on winners of currently non-existent divisions within the conference, and (2) with only 11 teams, the Big 10 is not allowed by NCAA rule to host a championship game. posted by bender at 4:19 PM CST on December 2" The Big 10 is said to be looking to bring other teams. The league should bring either 1 or 3 teams. Boise State would be an excellent addition. Once the Big 10 has an even number of teams, I do not see a good reason why it should not divide into two divisions (with cross division play during the season) and play a championship game. League Championship games have been big cash cows for leagues that have done them right (the ACC being an exception, that league cannot find a good venue for the game, the ACC should play the championship game on the campus of the higher ranked team in the game or choose a location near the centerpoint of the league Washington DC or the Carolinas).

posted by Cave_Man at 05:30 PM on December 02

Boise State is an awful long ways from all of the other Big Ten schools. The closest would be Iowa or Minnesota which isn't saying much. As for a Big Ten championship game, the Michigan vs. Ohio State game often serves as the Big Ten championship game with the winner also winning the Big Ten. In fact, they have decided the championship between each other 23 times.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:46 PM on December 02

I guess I am lost here... it read that OU beat Missouri. OU blasted MU and left no doubt that the first meeting was not a fluke at all, but the real deal. I Know that MU only lost two games all year - both to OU. But, everyone acts like the SEC is some super power. Or, that LSU is deserving because they play such a hard conference. I offer you the Big 12. As of the last polls, they have three teams in the top 10. And, they have their powerhouses like OU, TX, MU, Kansas, Texas Tech, etc.... They will have 8 teams from the conference in bowl games. As for the SEC, Mississippi or MS, or others are like the bottom feeders of any conference. They can't all be good. As for USC, let us not forget that they lost at home to a 41 pt. underdog. That is all I need to hear about them. I believe that OU doesn't get the respect THIS year they deserve. But, they are only going to loose one or two senior starters, so next year should be better. I won't sit and pony up for my Sooners, but I do believe that Ohio State had a much easier time of getting there. Same with LSU, could have lost 4 games. Those calls - risky as they are - make you look great when they work, and an ass when they don't. I do believe that Tennessee could have beaten LSU. I just don't see them as the second best team in the country. My vote would have to go to Georgia and Ohio State simply due to the rankings. If they don't count, don't have them. This season has just blown up in the BCS's faces. I believe this should merit some sort of discussion for at least a four to eight team playoff. As for Hawaii, sorry about that. You are undefeated and that should count. I guess it doesn't.

posted by Mickster at 08:19 PM on December 02

Personally, I liked Dan Wetzel's idea of a 16-team tournament, with even the lesser conferences like the Sun Belt, WAC, Mountain West, MAC and C-USA having their conference champs in it. With such a system, everyone starts the season with a chance at the national title. Any system where a team can go undefeated and have no shot at a national title just because they haven't been good previously is completely bogus. Since Hawaii wasn't going to be allowed in, I think LSU was the right call for the second team. My own view (and I realize that it is strictly my own) is that any game that goes beyond two OTs should be unofficially considered a tie, i.e. the final result still counts for all official purposes, but when making subjective judgments, consider any game that goes that long to be a crap shoot. So if I'm subjectively comparing LSU, Kansas, Virginia Tech and USC, I'm considering LSU to be 11-0-2 as opposed to 11-2. But again, that's just me. I kinda feel bad for Missouri this time around. Even though they beat Kansas as well as another BCS team (Illinois), they have to watch Kansas play in the Orange Bowl while they get shutout of the BCS, despite only losing to one team all year (albeit twice) and playing a much tougher schedule. Also unfortunate that Georgia didn't get to the SEC Championship game so that they could have proven themselves worthy against LSU.

posted by TheQatarian at 10:24 PM on December 02

The BCS uses an elaborate system of combining two polls and a computer to rank these teams. Apparently they determined it would be too easy just to take the top 10 teams from their ranking system and assign them to the bowl games so they develop a bunch of more rules instead. This resulted in omitting their #6 team (Missouri) and favoring their #13 team (Illinois) - a team Missouri already defeated this year. They also included Kansas (ranked #8) another team Missouri defeated and finished ahead of in the Big 12. Stoops thinks Oklahoma should play for the championship since "You all voted them (Missouri) No. 1 and we beat them ... for the second time on a neutral field," Stoops said. "No one else played the No. 1 team in the country." Stoops fails to mention that Oklahoma has been defeated twice by Colorado and Texas Tech. Oklahoma was not the only team to play both of these teams - Missouri played both Colorado and Texas Tech this year and defeated them by a combined score of 96-20. Plus there were plenty of teams that were ranked #1 and #2 this year and they were all defeated. West Virgina could not even defeat a 4-7 team and Oklahoma was #2 or #3 when Texas Tech beat them. Missouri was ranked #1 for the first time in two generations and acted like they did not belong there as Oklahoma completely dominated them in the second half. Colonel Travis' group put up a better fight than Missouri did. If Missouri does not show up with enough confidence to beat Oklahoma then they never will. Who really deserves to play this championship game anyway? Plenty of teams were ranked #1 and #2 this year and none of them took care of business. Forget this BCS system. Hawaii is undefeated and even came back from a 21-0 defecit to beat a 4-8 team. Hawaii deserves a chance to lose and they should be in the championship game. No other team in this division deserves to play in the championship game so they should bring in Appalachian State - they started this mess so they should finish it as well.

posted by longgreenline at 02:22 AM on December 03

longgreenline, that's as good a solution as any other that's been proposed. This is why I don't follow NCAA football, by the way. It feels like the whole racket is run by whoever has the most alumni in voting positions to continue glorifying their own schools and confereces instead of on the merit of the teams on the field. You can say it's not like that all you want. I've been hearing the justifications in every combination every time another #1 or #2 loses this year. To someone who'd like to get into the sport, that's what it looks like. Watching Herbstreit & Corso hurt themselves trying to do the calculus to explain why LSU loses twice and still gets to play a home game for the National Championship, when the only team in the country who hasn't been beaten won't get a sniff, simply because they & their conference don't have as many accredited sportswriters & voting alumni as the kids at the Cool Tables, seems arbitrary and parochial. Tell me again why the NCAA is so great?

posted by chicobangs at 03:00 AM on December 03

When nobody takes care of business, everyone left out gets to complain. Taking care of business includes not playing Northern Colorado or Charleston Southern. While I do think Ohio State-LSU is about as good as they could have done, I wouldn't have minded seeing Oklahoma or USC in there either. That said, I think all the voters have to take a real hard look at themselves after what they did to Georgia. If you're number #4 in the country, and #1 and #2 lose, how do you go from #4 to #5? Just letting Georgia slide on up the rankings when apparently voters don't think they're for real is a pretty mean trick. On a side note, games I wished we were getting: Hawaii vs. West Virginia, Virginia Tech vs. Georgia, Oklahoma vs. Florida, and Illinois vs. Missouri.

posted by chmurray at 03:52 AM on December 03

Well, since Georgia was a candidate for the Championship game, if Hawaii beats them in the Sugar Bowl, Hawaii can be number one in all our hearts. :D

posted by Joey Michaels at 03:52 AM on December 03

When nobody takes care of business, everyone left out gets to complain. Hawaii took care of business, chmurray.

posted by chicobangs at 04:00 AM on December 03

The "National Championship" is decided by ridiculous polls that in no way, shape, or form can determine what team is truly the "best." And even if the two most-deserving teams make it to the final game, and one comes out and doesn't play its best, does that mean the most-deserving team is actually the champion? Then I don't understand what your suggestion would be? Because your second sentence is true even in playoff football, so it seems in fact your saying both solutions don't work? As for my take, this year is a prime example of why we should NOT go to a playoff format. We've had nothing but playoffs for the the past several months, what with all the 1's and 2's dropping like flies...which has been much more entertaining then a 3 or 4 week "playoff" stretch.

posted by bdaddy at 09:17 AM on December 03

Mickster....I don't recall anyone saying that the first time that OU beat Mizzou was a fluke, it just wasn't the bitch slap that you'd like to believe that it was. This win was the bitch slap. Once again I say congratulations for showing up to play and taking care of business. (wow, 2 cliches strung together) As far as the BCS goes....how on earth do they screw over Hawaii and how does KU get a bowl over Mizzou? Oh well, it's another opportunity for KU to get embarrassed on national t.v. and that warms the cockels of my heart.

posted by budman13 at 09:41 AM on December 03

I'm not really sure I would call an eight point loss on a neutral site an embarrasment, but hey, whatever you want to believe. Seems to me Mizzou is the more qualified one to be embarrassed. Probably why they dropped below Kansas. Not because they lost, but how they lost.

posted by hawkguy at 10:42 AM on December 03

Here's what I don't understand: If LSU was rewarded with a bid to the title game on the strength of its conference, shouldn't OSU be PENALIZED for the weakness of its conference? And, yes, I certainly agree that an undefeated Hawaii should get its shot at the national title. I love college football. But I have nothing but contempt for the college presidents and boosters who won't let the championship be settled on the field. If we ever do put a playoff system in place, I think the first reaction will be why the F**K we waited so long.

posted by cjets at 10:44 AM on December 03

When I become king: 1) Only an undefeated team can be the national champion. 2) If there are more than 3 undefeated teams, then use the strength-of-schedule to determine who plays. 3) If there is only one, use a ranking system to determine who plays them (and if that undefeated team loses in the championship game, there's no champion that year). 4) If there are no undefeated teams, there is no national championship game -- everyone just lines up and plays in the bowl games they're invited to. 5) Notre Dame and Texas A&M never get to be champion (because I'm king and they displease me). An undefeated team has beaten all comers and should be expected to keep doing so until proven otherwise. Back to reality, no way should LSU be in the title game. They were ranked #1 two different times this year and lost. Why should they be given a third chance?

posted by joaquim at 11:07 AM on December 03

Give Hawaii a shot. Last year Boise State beat a good OU team in a game for the ages. Who says Hawaii couldn't do the same?

posted by drumdance at 11:17 AM on December 03

Who else has Hawaii played outside of Boise State? I've heard a few of you here talk about how they had just as tough of a road as anyone else. Did they? Outside of Boise State, who did they play? Even Kansas, with their "horrible schedule," played 5 bowl teams this year (2 more than USC by the way). How many bowl teams did Hawaii play? I actually feel bad for the Warriors, not today, but b/c of how several months ago they tried to upgrade their schedule, but teams like USC were scared to come out and play. If Hawaii and Boise State are really going to consistently be good teams, their only hope to getting the respect they deserve on a year in-year out basis is to get into a bcs conference. Boise in the Big 10 for example. I hope that the Warriors win, i really do, but until someone can show me how their road here was as tough as anyone else's (did Ohio State and LSU have the 138th and 139th SOS?), then i'm not ready to believe that they should be in the title game.

posted by brainofdtrain at 12:09 PM on December 03

So Boise State doesn't count, then? You're saying Hawaii gets dinged simply because other schools didn't want to play them for whatever reason? Is that what you're saying? Because that doesn't sound good either. Strength of schedule would matter if all other things were equal. But they're not. LSU lost twice -- twice! -- and they get to play a home game for the national championship. (And save your breath about "overtime losses." They're listed as 11-2, not 11-0-2. And even 11-0-2 is not 12-0.) That's another thing. One of the big arguments against a playoff is that they don't want to extend the season for the student athletes. Yet some teams play 11 games, while others wind up playing as many as 14 games. So that's kind of bogus too.

posted by chicobangs at 12:27 PM on December 03

The "National Championship" is decided by ridiculous polls that in no way, shape, or form can determine what team is truly the "best." And even if the two most-deserving teams make it to the final game, and one comes out and doesn't play its best, does that mean the most-deserving team is actually the champion? Then I don't understand what your suggestion would be? Because your second sentence is true even in playoff football, so it seems in fact your saying both solutions don't work? What I was saying is there will be arguments and disagreements whether the current system remains in place or a playoff system is developed. I believe a true playoff system only works if it's run like in other sports, where you play either the best-of-five or best-of-seven series. A playoff format in football would cause problems and debates with the early pairings, and who ultimately got a raw deal. As long as the Big 10 plays most of their games against the Big 10, and the SEC plays most of their games against the SEC, etc., there will be now true way to determine the actual "best" team. Even if Ohio State should happen to beat LSU, that doesn't mean Ohio State is better. They would have just happened to win that day.

posted by dyams at 12:59 PM on December 03

Probably why they dropped below Kansas. Not because they lost, but how they lost. Ah shucks Hawkguy, Mizzou didn't drop below KU in any of the polls. BCS still has us at #6 and you boys at #8. We still finished above you folks. But you should be proud of being the best team in Kansas, although that's kind of like being the prettiest girl at the "ugly girl" dance.

posted by budman13 at 01:13 PM on December 03

Probably why they dropped below Kansas. Not because they lost, but how they lost. Ah shucks Hawkguy, Mizzou didn't drop below KU in any of the polls. BCS still has us at #6 and you boys at #8. . But you should be proud of being the best team in Kansas, although that's kind of like being the prettiest girl at the "ugly girl" dance.

posted by budman13 at 01:14 PM on December 03

As far as quality of bowl game, they did, in fact drop below Kansas. Missouri has two losses, Kansas has one. Missouri got embarrassed Saturday night. Kansas did not. Take it like a man.

posted by hawkguy at 01:24 PM on December 03

I actually feel bad for the Warriors, not today, but b/c of how several months ago they tried to upgrade their schedule, but teams like USC were scared to come out and play. Source please. SC played Hawaii in 2005. If SC turned down a game against Hawaii this year, it's because they had a full schedule. Their non-conference schedule included Nebraska and Notre Dame (and yes I know they sucked this year but they are traditional football powers.) And SC plays Ohio State next September. So, you can knock other teams schedules as much as you want but SC always tries to schedule strong teams from other conferences.

posted by cjets at 01:47 PM on December 03

chico said : Strength of schedule would matter if all other things were equal. But they're not. LSU lost twice -- twice! -- and they get to play a home game for the national championship. (And save your breath about "overtime losses." They're listed as 11-2, not 11-0-2. And even 11-0-2 is not 12-0.) To turn the tables on you chico, are you saying that if LSU played the 137th ranked SOS they wouldn't be 12-0? Is that what you are saying? Because that sure doesn't sound good either. Chico, you just can't examine the win-loss record apart from considering strength of schedule somehow, given the multiple conferences and sheer number of D-1 teams in the game today. Forgive me if this comes across as rude, but to pretend that Hawaii would be 12-0 in the SEC is naive, just as thinking that LSU would have two losses in the WAC. I'm not saying that the SEC is miles and miles ahead of everyone else, but they are definitely a top-tier conference, and the WAC isn't. Again, i think Hawaii is a good team. However, you can't simply elevate the record over schedule strength. You have to consider them, as well as other factors, in tandem. When all the facts are considered, i have little problem seeing LSU play in the title game.

posted by brainofdtrain at 01:49 PM on December 03

cjets, Here you go. Read the 1st three paragraphs.

posted by brainofdtrain at 01:53 PM on December 03

That's all great, brainofdtrain. But if SOS is as important as the actual won-loss record, then why is it only mentioned when someone is trying to justify why a team with an inferior W-L record should get preference over a superior one? If the NCAA listed Hawaii's record as 12-0-137 and LSU's as 11-2-1 (or whatever), and did it all year long (they have computers, they can do that), then I'd buy your argument. You call me naive to think that Hawaii would never have beaten the "good teams" in the conference you follow. My question, once again, is: How do you know that? If they get frozen out of playing teams that can't be bothered to play outside their old boys' network simply because those schools would rather pad their schedules with Akron or Kent State or Middle Tennessee State or whatever, then how are you so sure that you're right? I'm not saying Hawaii would win or not. I'm saying that the fact that we don't know, and never will, makes me ask questions about things like collusion and old-boys-networks and other corrupt practices, in what should be at least nominally a meritocracy. Call me all the names you want, but I don't think it's "naive" to count won-loss record as the first consideration in a sport where You Play To Win The Game.

posted by chicobangs at 02:29 PM on December 03

budman 13-Give it a rest. Mizzou got beat in spades and quit making stupid remarks about Kansas. Sure your disappointed and so am I. That doesn't change the fact that Kansas had only one loss. If you don't stop all this Kansas idiotic nonsense everybody on this sight will think we are a bunch of sore losers instead of being proud what our boys accomplished this year. We improved greatly, the Tigers gave us some exciting moments and brought back alot of fans that were standing on the sidelines. So don't demean a great season by the Tigers by making stupid comments for the whole damn country to see.

posted by smdragon at 02:36 PM on December 03

What I was saying is there will be arguments and disagreements whether the current system remains in place or a playoff system is developed. I believe a true playoff system only works if it's run like in other sports, where you play either the best-of-five or best-of-seven series. A playoff format in football would cause problems and debates with the early pairings, and who ultimately got a raw deal. As long as the Big 10 plays most of their games against the Big 10, and the SEC plays most of their games against the SEC, etc., there will be now true way to determine the actual "best" team. Even if Ohio State should happen to beat LSU, that doesn't mean Ohio State is better. They would have just happened to win that day. oh..then I agree with you 100% :-)

posted by bdaddy at 02:59 PM on December 03

Thanks BrainofDtrain, But I completely disagree with the spin that ESPN put on the article. Here's the applicable quote from the article: Hawaii was scheduled to play Michigan State this season, but the Spartans paid $250,000 to cancel the game. Jones tried to replace the Spartans with Southern California, but even the Trojans wanted no part of quarterback Colt Brennan and the Warriors' high-octane offense. Mark Schlabach is a complete tool. SC wanted NO PART OF THEM? Much more likely is the fact that SC had its schedule set and it could not schedule Hawaii into its schedule at the last minute. Do you really think that Pete Carroll wanted no part of quarterback Colt Brennan and the Warriors' high-octane offense?. Or that Schlabach is trying to create a story where there is none. I don't see where Schlabach mentions that SC played Hawaii TWICE in the last 5 years. SC doesn't duck anyone. Here are some non conference teams USC has played since 2002: Notre Dame (every year) Nebraska (2006, 2007) Arkansas (2005, 2006) Hawaii (2003, 2005) Virginia Tech (2004) Auburn (2002, 2003) Colorado (2002) Kansas State (2002)

posted by cjets at 02:59 PM on December 03

I believe a true playoff system only works if it's run like in other sports, where you play either the best-of-five or best-of-seven series. So are you saying that the NFL does not have a legitimate playoff system? A playoff format in football would cause problems and debates with the early pairings, and who ultimately got a raw deal. The best team has to beat everyone whether it's in the first round or championship game. The best comparison here is March Madness. Teams may complain about seedings but they are soon forgotten. If you are the best team, then you have to earn it. Even if Ohio State should happen to beat LSU, that doesn't mean Ohio State is better. They would have just happened to win that day. I couldn't disagree more. Do you think that the Super Bowl winner is not the better team? Your statement seems to invalidate every upset that's ever happened in a one game playoff or national championship. The team that wins in the big game is the better team. And a huge part of being the better team is clutch play in the big game.

posted by cjets at 03:15 PM on December 03

To use a somewhat overworked saying, "the bowl picture is what it is". There are 5 major bowls, each of which has an intriguing matchup. All of them taken together will give a somewhat clearer picture of who the stronger teams and conferences are. Just don't try to convince me that any one of the 5 teams that wins in these bowls is a "national champion". Until the NCAA, the larger conferences, the bowl sponsors, and them there TV people can cobble together some sort of playoff system, there will not be a true champion in D-1 football. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the games for what they are worth, that is, pretty good matchups on paper.

posted by Howard_T at 03:37 PM on December 03

Sportsfilter: Pretty Good Matchups On Paper

posted by Joey Michaels at 05:10 PM on December 03

Mike Huguenin ranks the bowls from the worst to the best. Missouri got shafted. With victories over Kansas and Illinois as well as only two losses they should have made it over both of those teams.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:23 PM on December 03

Hawkguy and Smdragon you folks need to get a sense of humor. I don't give an unholy rat's ass that Mizzou didn't get a BCS bowl. Yes Mizzou had a wonderful season and I'm extremely proud of the guys. Oklahoma is the better team and as I said before I congratulate them whole heartedly. They handed our asses to us there's no doubt in that. All that I ask of the Tigers every year is to beat the two teams from Kansas and I'm a happy man. The rest is icing on the cake. There's no sore loser shit going on here. On the contrary, I'm doing the happy dance. The Cotton Bowl and Arkansas. Should be an excellent game.

posted by budman13 at 05:30 PM on December 03

budman-I got a sense of humor, especially when I hear stupid rant from fellow Missourians with the IQ of a squirrel. I was at the game at Arrowhead and alot of the crap was started by Mizzou fans. If your whole reason for living is Kansas teams being beat instead of the Tigers winning the Big 12 conference, may I suggest you take up another sport to be a fan.

posted by smdragon at 05:45 PM on December 03

I don't give an unholy rat's ass that Mizzou didn't get a BCS bowl. It doesn't bother you one bit that 1) if Missouri had defeated Oklahoma they would have been in the national championship game or 2) that two teams (one with a worse record than Missouri) that Missouri defeated during the season are in BCS bowls?

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:35 PM on December 03

LSU lost twice -- twice! To be fair, both losses were in triple-overtime. The rules get so convoluted at that point (alternating attempts PLUS forced two point conversions) that anything can happen.

posted by grum@work at 06:50 PM on December 03

budman-I got a sense of humor, especially when I hear stupid rant from fellow Missourians with the IQ of a squirrel. I was at the game at Arrowhead and alot of the crap was started by Mizzou fans. If your whole reason for living is Kansas teams being beat instead of the Tigers winning the Big 12 conference, may I suggest you take up another sport to be a fan. posted by smdragon at 5:45 PM CST on December 3 Pah-leeze. I was there too. The fans that I happened to sit around which included quite a few Jay Hawk fans were spirited but everyone was polite. There was a lot of good natured ribbing but very little unsportsmanlike conduct from either side. I haven't the slightest idea where you sat. Apparently although you say that you have a sense of humor but you obviously haven't mastered recognizing exageration for the sake of a laugh. It's like the phrase..." I root for two teams...The Cardinals and anyone playing against the Cubs." Get it now? If you do then reward yourself with a walnut or two to share with the other squirrels in your tree. Would I have liked to see the Tigers win the Big 12? You bet. I don't give an unholy rat's ass that Mizzou didn't get a BCS bowl. It doesn't bother you one bit that 1) if Missouri had defeated Oklahoma they would have been in the national championship game or 2) that two teams (one with a worse record than Missouri) that Missouri defeated during the season are in BCS bowls? Sure it bothered me for about 30 seconds because in the grand scheme of things, it is just a football game and I've got a very strong sense of fairplay, so, yeah it's not fair. Oh well. The BCS is so screwed up that every year some one gets hosed over. Didn't K-State get hosed in '98? I'm gonna get up early on Jan. 1st and fix a nice brunch for my son (who's an MU alum) and about 5 of his and my frat brothers [sima pi] and we're going to watch the Tigers feast on Razorback. Then later I'll watch my alma matre Wisconsin beat the hell out of a bunch of Volunteers. Mizzou will have it's day in the sun and someday will play for a national title but in the end boys, it's just a game.

posted by budman13 at 09:23 PM on December 03

Of all the BCS bowls, I like the Hawaii-UGA matchup just for the entertainment value. If the Dawgs win, then their fans can talk about how they were denied a chance at the championship, though my guess is that the neutrals will be hoping for a reprise of Boise State last January. The other games don't particularly fascinate me, though I do feel for Mizzou: like I said upthread, while Ohio State sat on their rears, this past weekend's games turned into a de facto knockout round. Still, playing Arkansas again satisfies the ultimate criterion: it should be fun to watch.

posted by etagloh at 01:19 AM on December 04

The team that really got the shaft in all of this was Georgia. One week they are ranked at #4, right behind OSU, when the BCS bastards knew they had no shot at the SEC tittle. Then when #7 LSU wins the SEC tittle, they jump everyone to #2. What consideration was given to Oklahoma, who was at #9 when they spanked Mizzou? LSU didn't even beat the #1 ranked team like OU did! Personally I believe the National Championship Game should be OSU vs. Georgia. If Georgia was good enough to be ranked ahead of LSU, a week ago when everybody knew they weren't even playing in the SEC championship game, then they should have moved up just like OSU did. I don't know how they didn't, it has to be SOS. Here is a page I found from the begining of the season with SOS for Div. 1.

posted by jojomfd1 at 01:31 AM on December 04

To be fair, both [LSU's] losses were in triple-overtime. To be fair, both LSU's losses were losses. If an overtime loss counts differently than a regular time loss, then do what hockey does and break it out to another statistic. Otherwise, this argument is also bogus.

posted by chicobangs at 01:43 AM on December 04

like I said upthread, while Ohio State sat on their rears, this past weekend's games turned into a de facto knockout round. So then what you are saying is since there is no conference championship in the big ten, that OSU should start their season a week later. That way their season can end on the same week as all of the conferences that have a championship game? What about teams that have open dates, or bye weeks?

posted by jojomfd1 at 01:49 AM on December 04

Your statement seems to invalidate every upset that's ever happened in a one game playoff or national championship. The team that wins in the big game is the better team. And a huge part of being the better team is clutch play in the big game. So, for example, George Mason beating UConn, number 1 in the country at the time, in a NCAA basketball tournament game a couple years ago, automatically and without a doubt meant George Mason was the best basketball team in the nation? It means George Mason would have cruised through the Big East and, in fact, should have been a number one seed? No. Upsets happen due to one team finding a way to come out on top of another team that particular day. Maybe the upset shouldn't happen in a perfect world, but you get that in playoff/tournament play. Other upsets occur earlier in playoffs or tournaments that mean certain teams don't end up meeting, so your point that every team has to beat every other team in a playoff format is false. There will always be controversy, regardless of the format used to determine a champion, but in NCAA Division 1 football we'll probably never get the chance to find this out because the powers-that-be will never abandon the bowl games.

posted by dyams at 05:34 AM on December 04

jojomfd1, if you're going to look at strength of schedule, you should look at actual strength of schedule numbers from this season rather than just preseason projections. That being said, the reason Georgia was left out is that they didn't win the SEC. How can you play for the national championship when you don't even win your division within your conference to play for your conference championship?

posted by bender at 08:38 AM on December 04

The problem with College football is simple: there is no FAIR, UNBIASED measure of a team's rank. The Computer still relies on the ranking of the human system. SOS is biased as much as any other rank. There is no fair way to do this and therefore someone will always be upset but the outcome. I admit my bias in that I think the SEC is the most overrated conference and they never pretend to not be arrogant about their obvious superiority. It's sad when one conference thinks they are above the rest and deserve special consideration. The so-called SOS is soley based on opinion. Just like the ranking system is based on opinion. If you go by the numbers you'll always insult some team or conference. Yes, Kansas played a bunch of pansies but some of those pansies they blew the heck out of them. Same with OU. Maybe the SEC is so superior a conference that they need their own national championship. Maybe there should always be a co-champion. I mean if they're SO good we don't even need to see the National Championship game. OSU should just forfeit now and call it a day before they get hurt. The system is pathetic. We all know that. The system is biased and all the people that aren't SEC fans know that too. I'm tired of hearing about SOS and who beat who and who lost to whom. W's are W's and L's are L's regardless of how or who you beat or lost to. The system has enough parity now b/c of the restricted number of scholarships that there shouldn't be an argument of SOS and who's conference is better. The problem this year is b/c of the so-called SOS the pollsters, biased as they are, have decided an undefeated team doesn't deserve a chance. They have also decided multiple two-loss teams are better than a one-loss or a no-loss. All this is based on the opinion that certain conferences are better than others. This is further based on the fact that the SEC is the best conference of all; thus, LSU has the hardest SOS. It's all opinion and no facts. This is why in NCAA BB you see cinderellas and upsets b/c the opinions of men are often wrong.

posted by chuybakah at 09:26 AM on December 04

Actually, here are some better strength of schedule numbers that come from the NCAA and show how they are determined. On edit: I do agree with that assertion that SOS is potentially misleading. I'm just posting that for whoever may want to take a look at it. Ultimately, I think the 2 teams whose seasons most merited getting to the championship are there (although I could make an argument for Oklahoma or perhaps Virginia Tech). Also, I, for one, am happy with the system as it is that provides us with what is the best regular season in all of sports and a championship game (of some sort) at the end of the season. [And before you go to look at my profile and see that I am an OSU alum, I'd like to note that I was really hoping to go to the Rose Bowl (for the first time in 11 years) and am honestly disappointed that we are not going to be able to do that, but with both Missouri and West Virginia going down, well, here we are.]

posted by bender at 09:27 AM on December 04

What does not make sense jojomfd1 is that lsu's win was a bigger consideration in their jumping up in rank than OU's pounding of former #1 mizzou. Even though lsu's win over former #18 tennessee was on an lucky interception or two in the 4th. Once again a team hands the tigers a win. Kind of like how OU handed the win to CU several weeks back. If SOS is considered than why aren't the individual merit of the win/loss considered? Although I disagree that OT losses are less of a loss; that would be my special consideration. The college OT is a fair and balanced way to offer each team a chance to win. lsu had 6 chances to win; that's awefully generous. Regulation wins/losses should be scrutinized for how lop-sided they were. OU's two losses were in tough away games where either turnovers, key 1st-quarter injuries, or poor officiating affected the outcome. If the SEC is so much better than they should not even bother playing other conferences as they will always prevail.

posted by chuybakah at 09:38 AM on December 04

So, for example, George Mason beating UConn, number 1 in the country at the time, in a NCAA basketball tournament game a couple years ago, automatically and without a doubt meant George Mason was the best basketball team in the nation? You're comparing apples and oranges. In your earlier post you said: Even if Ohio State should happen to beat LSU, that doesn't mean Ohio State is better. They would have just happened to win that day. For better or worse, with the system we have now (and no one wants a playoff more than I do), the winner of that game is the national champion. If the "better team" can't win THAT DAY, then by definition, they're not the better team. A more apt comparison is the Super Bowl. By your definition, the team that wins the Super Bowl is not necessarily better, they're just the better team THAT DAY. To me, winning THAT DAY is what determines the national championship. And if you can't bring your A game on THAT DAY then you're not the better team. To get back to your point, If George Mason beat Uconn for the national title, that's exactly what it would mean. Otherwise, George Mason has to win its remaining tournament games to be considered the best team. Maybe the upset shouldn't happen in a perfect world, but you get that in playoff/tournament play. Other upsets occur earlier in playoffs or tournaments that mean certain teams don't end up meeting, so your point that every team has to beat every other team in a playoff format is false. There will always be controversy, regardless of the format used to determine a champion, but in NCAA Division 1 football we'll probably never get the chance to find this out because the powers-that-be will never abandon the bowl games. If you're saying that there should be a playoff then I completely agree with you. Otherwise, I have to tell you, I don't understand your argument. The best team should be able to beat all other teams in a playoff. Can you point to a past NCAA basketball champ or NFL champ (both of whom have one game playoffs and championships) that's controversial? If they win all of their playoff games, then they're the champ. Where's the controversy in that? In the regular season, you have some leeway (even in College Football apparently). But once you're in the playoffs, it's win or go home. And if you can't win all your playoff games, you don't deserve to be champion. Being the better team means beating the other teams. Period.

posted by cjets at 01:45 PM on December 04

That way their season can end on the same week as all of the conferences that have a championship game? Yeah. Remember, I'm coming at this from a sporting background that's built upon balanced leagues, pure knockout competitions, and structured amalgams of the two. The BCS is a bastard child: it's a pseudo-league, but the final week (and arguably the final two weeks) turned games into de facto knockout ties. If losing in the final two weeks essentially puts you out of consideration, then the pressure (and the prize for a local rival like Pitt) increases, and finishing your season before those final two weeks gives you an inherent advantage. (Remember, OSU finished their season 1-1, and lost to Illinois as the #1 ranked team.) When it's clear that the format is straight-knockout, the dynamics change, and it's understood that the ultimate winner is the team that gets past the opponents it happens to be drawn against on the day (i.e. what cjets just said). That's why European soccer has traditionally separated 'league winners' from 'cup winners'. But I'm actually with bender: attempting to square the circle and re-shape the regular season seems futile, given that it's so short and so widely dispersed across the nation. It would be more satisfying to replace the BCS ranking charade with a panel of experts -- or a public vote -- that creates a season-ending bowl slate where the top criteria are competing styles, regional/conference pride, and the opportunity for a great day out, leaving the winners to spend the off-season arguing the toss about who's really the National Champion.

posted by etagloh at 06:37 PM on December 04

I'd be as happy as a clam if USC had gotten jumped up to #2, of course, but there's no way I think it was the correct choice; LSU and Ohio State seem to be the right choices, even though I think my guys could win against either. What I don't understand is how we got Illinois in the Rose Bowl, since they were #13 and Missouri (#6) and Florida (#12) got left out of the BCS bowls. Is it because there's a two team per conference limit?

posted by billsaysthis at 09:34 PM on December 04

What does not make sense jojomfd1 is that lsu's win was a bigger consideration in their jumping up in rank than OU's pounding of former #1 mizzou. Even though lsu's win over former #18 tennessee was on an lucky interception or two in the 4th. If you go back and reread my post thats exactly the same thing I said! Bender, the BCS' excuse for leaving Georgia out for not winning the conference tittle is pure bullshit. Go back to week 14's rankings, everyone had them ranked ahead of LSU. This includes the BCS 's difference of Ga #4. and LSU #7. All of those involved in the polls knew that georgis had no shot at winning their conference tittle, because they were not even playing in it. For them to drop a spot and not move up or stay the same when the 3 teams ahead of them move is bullshit also. As far as teams like OSU delaying the start of their season by one week for the teams with conf. championship games. Why would those teams with the tittle games want more of a fight for TV coverage? Those that are played in neutral sites, what if there is another game being played there now due to this. Plus how can you decide the conference tittle game while there are still potential games being played? There are a lot of reasons that they play those extra conf champ games on that extra saturday. It is no other teams fault that those teams are in a confrence that has one, I wish the big ten had one. I would have loved to see OSU vs. Illinois again.

posted by jojomfd1 at 03:00 AM on December 05

Bill the Rose Bowl has been a Pac-10 vs. Big ten game since before they were even called by those names. If the champs of one of those divisions are in the national championship game then they take the second place team from that conference. Except when the Rose Bowl has been used as the National Championship Game. As it happened in 2002 and 2006.

posted by jojomfd1 at 03:10 AM on December 05

(Remember, OSU finished their season 1-1, and lost to Illinois as the #1 ranked team.) Um, LSU also finished their season 1-1, and lost to Arkansas as the #1 ranked team. But I'm actually with bender: attempting to square the circle and re-shape the regular season seems futile, given that it's so short and so widely dispersed across the nation. Did I say that? Bender, the BCS' excuse for leaving Georgia out for not winning the conference tittle is pure bullshit. Go back to week 14's rankings, everyone had them ranked ahead of LSU. This includes the BCS 's difference of Ga #4. and LSU #7. All of those involved in the polls knew that georgis had no shot at winning their conference tittle, because they were not even playing in it. For them to drop a spot and not move up or stay the same when the 3 teams ahead of them move is bullshit also. I, for one, did not have Georgia that high, and furthermore, I do not believe that a team--purely by virtue of not having lost--can't be passed by a lower team that won impressively. In fact, I look at the fact that voters were willing to do that with hope for future seasons, as their usual reluctance to move one team past another without the higher having lost is one of my big beefs with preseason rankings.

posted by bender at 08:13 AM on December 05

Unfortunately for Georgia, I guess, The BCS did have them ranked up that high. Not only to just skip over them, but to drop them a spot to boot during the last week of play. A week that Georgia was off, therefore they couldn't lose. The worst part about all of this is we will not see a play off any time in the very near future. What would be nice is some solid set in stone rules of how a team can become bowl eligible. They need to sit down and clarify if teams need to be conference champs, do they need to play until November 30th. In the case of a teams off week or bye earlier in the season, how many spots can they drop, or do they automatically retain their position due to not losing. The list would be long, I am not even sure if they could cover all possible scenario's. However, absent a playoff they have to do something to fix the mess that is in existence now.

posted by jojomfd1 at 08:56 PM on December 06

jojo, as a USC alum I'm well aware of the history of the Rose Bowl. But with the BCS, the rules are different--if the Big 10 #2 was, for instance, ranked #20 there's no way the team would be playing the game. So I think Missouri and Florida more likely got passed over due to a two team per conference limit and not that Illinois was preferred due to tradition.

posted by billsaysthis at 11:05 PM on December 06

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.