[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
hey they had tackled all important issues like freedom fries and all, so now it was on to football. did u not see that? am i the only viewer of c-span in north america? okay so i could not sleep and wanted to see somethign utterly boring, and that utah rep whats hisface droning about how unfair the system helped me zone out in 5 mins..but anyone know what the deal is? are they forcing N-C two A to change teh way its works?
I think a playoff situation makes more sense..rather than these formulas
[/QUOTE]
yeah but look at the number of college football teams around the nation, a possible playoff scenario would be confusing.
Unless each winner from all conferences face off in a playoff series, that would make more sense.
Umair, how many college teams play basketball? and yes basketball is a little different because teh games are faster and all, but that is a better way to determine a champion, in football we have a bsatardization of the league and championship approach.
Yeah but then again every basketball teams play about 30 odd games during the season.
Personally I think BCS ranking is a fare system, unlike March Maddness where any team on a given day can win and take the championship.
umair the difference between a league and a cup then..but even if we look at it from a league perspective the way these calculations are done are a mess. In leagues atleast the math is simpler.
and yes in march madness, anyone can beat anyone else ina given day, but that is pretty mych how all the major championships are decided whether it is olympics, world cup in rugby, football, field hockey, you name it.
if it was a simple as league title for premier league it would be something different, but it is not.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
umair the difference between a league and a cup then..but even if we look at it from a league perspective the way these calculations are done are a mess. In leagues atleast the math is simpler.
and yes in march madness, anyone can beat anyone else ina given day, but that is pretty mych how all the major championships are decided whether it is olympics, world cup in rugby, football, field hockey, you name it.
if it was a simple as league title for premier league it would be something different, but it is not.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah but much of the sports you mentioned above have only 2 or 3 knockout rounds like Qfinal, Semifinal and final but in March Maddness I believe its 5 or 6 rounds, and even the team who do well during the season can be eliminated in the first round and by the time you reach final 4, you can end up with bunch of unknown teams.
I believe BCS ranking are done on the strength of the schedule of a team.
Umair and the strength of the schedule is subjective.
march madness has the strength of the schedule as a basis as well, there are teams that win their respective conferences and then there are others which are invited based on their performance which factors in the stregth of the schedule.
as fars as the sports that I mentioned, they may have a few rounds, but there is a mechanism to narrow the field down to the teams that play in the championships.
in basketball teams are seeded based on their strength of schedue when they are placed in the brackets, and many are rightly ranked as proven again and again by some teams, but then there are teams that are way over ranked and others that are way under ranked.
I am all in favour of having teh BCS as long as it creates a field of finalists..32 teams even who will play in a playoff type situation.
Fraudz, i think 32 teams is too much for football. It needs to be top 16 teams. They can take the champions from the Conferences. Of course it will require conferences to have conf championship game...hey that will add more excitement. Then these champions can square off in the play offs.....
kaleem the diff between 32 and 16 is one game per team. if its a single elimination type gig. 32 teams means a total of 16 games which can take place within 4 days if there are 4 games going on each day. one in west one in east one in midwest and one in south type of thing.
so have your conference winners, and then have some by invitation based on over all performance.
I guess we dont fully agree on the mechanics here, but agree in principle.
YAY For the good ol' Miami Hurricanes!!!
We're doing pretty bad this year, but I still love'm!
Watch the Game on Saturday... us against Pittsburgh.. oh its on!
the Bulldogs had a bite of Yellow Jackets in 34-17 win - apparently we have clinched a return trip to the Southeastern Conference championship game on Saturday with LSU. :)
Obviously the BCS system is flawed. It pays way too much attention on the strenght of schedule and the overall season of all the teams.
USC's only loss was early in the season, a tripple-overtime loss to UC Berkeley. Oklahoma on the other hand got thumped by K. State and couldnt even win their own conference. LSU on the other hand has beaten teams like Louisiana Monroe, Western Illinois and Louisiana Tech. Frankly, I have never heard of these three college teams or watched them on TV and I do follow a lot of college football. Obviously, according to BCS scedule of Southern Conference was considered tougher than Pac 10. Thats a load of bull.
USC is ranked unanimously #1 in both AP and Coaches poll and they will maintain their ranking if they win the Rose Bowl vs. Michigan on Jan. 1. So BCS will produce a national champ and old system will produce a national champ and USC will lay their claim to national title as well. The only way the controversy will be avoided if Michigan beats USC in the Rose Bowl, which is highly unlikely. BCS will most definitely be scrapped by 2005 if not next season. You have no idea how pissed USC alumni and fans are in this city.
I also bet you that Rose bowl with nations top offenses USC and Michigan will draw a bigger rating than Sugar Bowl anyway. Everyone wants to see these two on New Years. Also for USC it will be a home game and they will have larger fan presence in Pasadena.
Despite of USC not making it to the Sugar Bowl, you should also look @ the manner that Oklahoma won their matches.
Their margins of victory were much higher then LSU or USC, regardless, OU should have been number 1 in all 3 polls despite of 1 loss.
Also, OU were also in the toughest conference in the country, BIG XII.
WRONG. SEC and even Big Ten were tougher this year.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
Despite of USC not making it to the Sugar Bowl, you should also look @ the manner that Oklahoma won their matches.
Their margins of victory were much higher then LSU or USC, regardless, OU should have been number 1 in all 3 polls despite of 1 loss.
Also, OU were also in the toughest conference in the country, BIG XII.
[/QUOTE]
