In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 934
Online now 1058 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Certainly have put the lie to many of the arguments I hear in CFB, especially from BCS proponents. These are the main two, though:
First of all, that the regular season matters. This was disproved last year. By pretty much every measure out there, LSU should have won the title game. They beat Bama in the regular season in Tuscaloosa. They had one of the most difficult schedules of all teams last year. They won their conference. But you look back on it and it's obvious that Alabama was the better team.
Also, when voters put Bama into the title game itself, the regular season argument flew out the window. Bama didn't even win its own division, but somehow earned the right to play in the title game? As my high school gym teacher would say, that's garbage. When you're throwing teams like Alabama in there, you can't tell me the regular season matters because it doesn't.
Second, I keep hearing that SOS isn't weighted heavily enough. I really get sick of this, to be honest. Your strength of schedule does not determine how good you are. Alabama would be a great team with an SEC schedule or a MAC schedule.
This was disproved both last year and this year. As someone mentioned, ND's schedule was harder than Bama's overall. Not only that, but Bama had a loss, while ND did not (up until the MNC game). Similar to last year - LSU had a much harder schedule than Bama. Yet Bama creamed both of them.
How do SOS advocates explain the last two MNC's? If we were looking at them by SOS, Bama shouldn't have won either. But they did, and in dominating fashion. Am I saying SOS shouldn't be a factor? Not at all. But people seem to want to make that THE factor, when it is obviously flawed.
It's a fine line. I don't think that SOS should be everything, but you should be in a decent enough league so that you play at least a a few top 25 teams. An 8 team playoff would solve 99% of the problems, IMO. If a team is a fraud (like ND), they will be bounced in the first round.
I agree on the 8 teams. However, in the last 2 years who deserved to be in the BCS besides Bama.
I think people need to sit down and watch the games, personally. Just watching the games, the difference on the field between pretenders and contenders is obvious.
And yes, playoffs would solve a lot of the issues. The fact is, though, this is football. The final results of a game don't always follow what the statistics say should happen. Part of the beauty of the game.
The "lie" is that, with few exceptions, there is no single "best" team. Alabama very well could have lost to LSU (probably should have) and Georgia and they did lose to aTm. Championships crown champions. They don't determine who the "best" team is, just who was better that night.
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
Yep, upsets are why football is great. At least with an 8 team playoff, undeserving teams would have to luck out 3 times to win the NC. And if they did that, they deserve it. One game just isn't enough. Four teams will prove to be not enough either. Eight is perfect IMO.
I think on a theoretical basis you have to say that one team truly is the best of all college football. The problem is that football is a game of statistical anomalies. It's one game, and you're right - the best team very well might not win. But then the argument becomes how to determine the best team? Is aTm actually better than Alabama? Or did they simply benefit from the +3 turnover margin that game? Is ND actually better than Michigan? Or did they benefit from the +4 turnover margin?
JMO, but based on what I saw last night, Alabama is a better team than ND, period. Not just for one night.
This is why I think people need to watch the games. If you simply sit down and watch the teams play, you can see which ones are better.
SOS is not necessarily to determine how good a team is, but if 2 teams are sitting at 11-1, then the team with the harder schedule should get the benefit of the doubt because they had the same record against harder competition.
Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. I feel like we've seen enough examples to say that that's not necessarily correct. And I didn't even mention the Louisville/Florida example in my OP. Louisville had something like the 111th toughest schedule, but demolished Florida - who even had one more win than they did.
This is the inherent problem - those two teams should just freaking play each other for it. I don't want pollsters to sit there and tell me who they think is the best team. Use a playoff. SOS is one indicator, but very far from perfect. I think that should be obvious at this point.
the sugar bowl exemplifies the beauty of the game of football, one game winner takes all. not many sports have that format, and with the other big 3 a great team can have an off night and still end up moving on.. i think baseball is getting more exciting with the addition of a wild card team, plus their first round is only a 5 game series..
IF you use a playoff you're still going to run into the same problems just further down the line in who gets in/out because you have a "league" with 120 teams. I have no problem with strength of schedule being used because you need a way to compare teams to decide which is hypothetically better. The bottom line is it's still football and still a one game series and Bama or whoever is number one can lose to anybody one time and a very good team can get blow out. You see it in the NFL all the time, a 10-6 or 9-7 team beating a 15-1 or 14-2 team in the playoffs. You never know what could have happened if there was a playoff and what ever team came out on the other side of Bama's bracket could still have gotten demolished by Bama even if it wasn't ND.
I don't think you get it. SOS isn't a definer as to who is better on the field. You don't say, "well, gee golly, they had the better SOS so their 9-3 is better than the easier team's 12-0." You're looking at two 11-1 teams, one of which gets to play the 12-0 team. You look at the 11-1s, both of which scored 35+ points a game and allowed less than 18, and you say, "you know what, Team A's schedule was much more difficult than Team B's, so given the similarities, Team A is either (1) better or (2) more deserving." Either way, the tie is broken and Team A gets to play the 12-0.
Your reference to Louisville is a red-herring. There, you're not comparing two teams to decide who would get the chance to play another. Looking at what they did, Florida was clearly the more deserving of a "better" game. (I should note that I think Florida is garbage and was not surprised they lost, but I did also think that Louisville was garbage, so...) That's what SOS is for - not deciding who is more likely to win in a given matchup, but who should have a chance at that matchup.
SOS doesn't decide the victor, it decides the competitor. In this respect, it's at least as viable a consideration as rankings established by some guys who probably only watch 2-3 games a week and then look up box scores.
I don't have a problem with SOS being used, but people use it way too much.
A playoff isn't perfect, but it means you've got three games to win, rather than just one. Also would cut down on the month or more off that teams have, which IMO should not be a big part of the game.
NFL has parity, it's a completely different game. You've got enough common opponents usually in the NFL that SOS is not discussed unless you're talking about draft placement.
With CFB, you're lucky to have one common opponent between non-con teams, much less more than one. Given that fact, it's stupid not to have them play it out and argue about SOS. I've been saying for years that the strength of your schedule does not determine how good you are. I don't feel like it's a difficult concept, but yet people always fall back on the SOS argument, when it's been shown to be flawed.
Your whole post is a red herring.
OK, let's play your game then. I'll "change the scenario" (i.e. not actually changing it, just how you present it). Let's say Team A is 12-0, Team B is 11-1. Team A had a tougher overall SOS than Team B, not to mention the benefit of one more win. Who then is the better of the two teams and deserves to play Ohio State? See how SOS fails to predict which team is actually better? I assume you can figure out who Teams A and B are.
All this comparison stuff is supposed to determine who the BETTER team is, period.
Determining the competitor is the same as determining the victor. If one team has a better SOS, but is actually the WEAKER team, why would they deserve it over another team? They wouldn't. The better team deserves it and all this charade is to determine who the best team is. If CFB isn't actually about determining who the best team is each year, then what the heck are they doing?
Then how do you determine who the "better" team is? Just make it up?
Have them play each other, maybe?
Obviously, but are you going to have 120 teams play each other??? If you have a playoff you still have figure out which teams are in the playoff then once you decide who's in your going to have to seed them and how are you going to do that? No matter how much you hate it SOS will be the likely determining factor after record for both those scenarios. SOS is a guide not gospel, just like record.
There's this thing called the regular season. Bunch of teams play each other...
I never said to cut out SOS entirely. My issue is that people rely too much on it now and some people talk about using it even more. If you want to figure out which teams are best, watching the games usually helps. I'd like to know how many voters sit down and watch all of the good teams (i.e. approximately top 40 or so).
All people seem to look at now is record and SOS and then make their declarations. It's more than that.
No, you just evidently can't comprehend simple logic. My whole post is exactly what SOS is about - breaking ties. You're trying to say that, because people thought ND had a tough schedule, they were better. With all due respect, only Lou Holtz thought that.
Records first. OSU and ND. Done. Is it flawless? No, but its the best we have. Lacking OSU, we need a replacement. Bama or anyone else? SOS, Bama wins. Done. Don't red herring me, my logic is flawless and you're just trying to pick a pointless and baseless fight.
*in addition, your argument automatically presumes out a SOS consideration. What if NIU was 12-0, you say? Well, take SOS into that, too. Everything has a justification for consideration. Including SOS.
This post was edited by psume06 15 months ago
Well if you put it that way.
Yes, let's play 124 games a year! Problem solved! Most logical solution reached!
"My logic is flawless"? Who seriously says that? I know a lost cause when I read that. Most of your sentences don't even make sense. "Presumes out a SOS consideration."
I've not once said to remove SOS entirely. People use it too much. It's one tool that should be used among many, but people want to use that tool over and over again. I don't even think Bama would win the SOS comparison if you're looking at 11-1 teams - Florida had a tougher SOS. So it's not so "Done."
Call it whatever you want. "Breaking ties." Everything's in a nice little bundle in your world where everything is tied until SOS comes in to save the day I guess.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports