Since the SEC Title game has propelled Florida ahead of other prospective teams ( Michigan '06.....Texas '08 ) into the BCS title game 2 out of the last 3 years I have go with what works. I think the SEC has done the absolute right thing by going to this format.
And thus the problem with the BCS.... When the conference that is left to 'prove it's worth' is the one conference that actually decides it all on the field, there is a problem. You can't even see that.
Corey, Are you stating: To determine it on the field, you have to play each and every team in the conference?
I'm just curious. Because, if that is the case, then to determine a national champion means that you must play each and every team in the nation? I’m sure that he doesn’t believe that. There is no way for that to happen. He accuses Florida of not traveling. If SEC teams had to play all other 11 SEC teams, who else could they play. That would also stop Tennessee from playing a wide open schedule. Which does he prefer?
The problem with that Corey is a loss early cannot be redeemed necessarily at the end. Now...if UCLA were equally qualified for the BCS with say...zero or one loss and then USC beat them at the end then that would work but that's not usually the case. The voters and computers want to see a team that is exhibiting it's strengths at the end of the season...not one that still has questions to be answered and a strong conference title game win allows for that opportunity. The lone exception to this in all of the BCS years was last year...when LSU lost late and so did OSU. Trouble was...every team in contention lost as well.
Corey has a point about playing every other conference team, but in my opinion both situations (round robin and championship game) have merit. I agree with Dave that the championship game format is working OK, and I agree with Corey that in a league with 10 or less teams the round robin is a decisive indicator. I believe that for the championship game format to be meaningful, the conference must have a balance of strength in both divisions. That certainly is true in most years with the SEC, the ACC, and to a lesser extent with the B12. I'm not sure that's the case currently with the B10 or the Pac10, but that's just my opinion.
Corey...... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K8E_zMLCRNg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K8E_zMLCRNg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I wonder why they'd use a photo of a grasshopper for a cricket sound file. Maybe it's the same people who put a crocodile on the media guide cover for the Gators?
You weren't supposed to notice that croc thing Rick. Just one of several things that didn't go well for the Gators during that three year period. :cry: :cry:
Jesus Tom, a guy decides to get off the computer to enter the real world and you hint that I am dodging your question. You can check the login records, you know that is bullsh*t. Anyway, I am not saying that it is the only way. What I am saying is that round-robin > super-conference format...especially when you have fewer than 11 teams. The SEC chose to go to the 12 team format. I understand that it is not possible for them to play them all off. I also know they put themselves in that position.. which is fine, but don't tell me that what they do has any more merit than what the pac10 does... but that is exactly what this system does. As you know, I'd like to see a playoff system. (the 11 and 5). How a team decides its champion is their own business....but don't you tell me that a champion of a league that isn't sure if their champion is, in fact, the best team in that league is somehow better than a conference champion that played each and every team in their league. I eagerly anticipate the usage of your grasshopper imitating a cricket clip the next time one of mine, or Sid's or anyone else's question isn't addressed. Btw-did anyone actually read Dave's response? I about effing choked on that thing...
Chill Corey. The chirping was a joke. If I actually think you are dodging a question, I'll say so. I see no difference in the SECCG and the result of a tourney. If Tennessee wins the tourney, they still didn't play all 15 other teams. They still didn't play 107 other teams in the nation. I just don't see getting blood pressure up over something that we can't fix... and no, our opinions on this forum are not going to change anything.
Tom, I don't think they will fix anything either, and there's no BP issues to be had. We're not asking to re-invent the wheel here. We're asking to do what all other levels of football do.... Have a playoff. I posted some articles in another topic... You should check them out.
I checked the other articles out. My reason for voicing anything was to say that your discrediting the way that the SEC picks it's champion is flawed. You picked on Florida for not playing better OOC games but it appears that you would rather have them play all 11 other SEC teams instead of a SECCG. Can't have it both ways. Also, if it is so important that they play all other SEC teams to determine the SEC champion, then isn't it just as important to make them play all 118 div-1 teams to determine the National Champion. Obviously the latter is not any more possible than the former.
You didn't seem to eager to discredit Gaterz notion that the SEC's method is superior. What I am saying is this, again, the Pac10 method>the SEC method. I understand that the SEC has to do that....because they put themselves in that position by expanding to 12 teams. The world of college football in 1993 was headed in one direction, which is why they made that move.. The game has since changed, and now they want (and are getting) special considerations. The fact remains that the Pac10 can clearly tell you what would happen if Team X met Team Y. The SEC cannot make that claim. If they choose to operate that way, that is fine. That doesn't make them superior for it though. In fact, it is quite flawed.
Never used the term nor did I refer to the SEC way of being superior. I did receive from reading your post that the PAC10 way was better. It is apples and oranges. PAC10 does it the way that is best for them and the SEC does it the only possible way we can. I do not automatically agree with anyone, not even Cindy. Unless I stand up and support something said by another person, do not read into it that I do.
Hey IC, what about the Big-10/11? They crown a conference champ that's played only 8 of the 10 possible conference opponents. Is the Pac-10 > than the Big-10/11 as regards determining the conference champ? BTW ... you do realize the Pac-10 champion doesn't play a greater number of conference games than does the SEC or Big-12 champ .... don't you? And, that the Pac-10 champ gets its crown w/o the challenge of having to play a "playoff-like " title game? It's interesting that the advantage in getting a BCS title game slot enjoyed by the Pac-10 ..... ie not having to play an "single elimination" conference championship game ..... has not helped that conference the last few years in regards to getting to the BCS game - eg adequate human and computer poll ratings. Maybe the Pac-10 format isn't as good as that which includes playing a conference championship game .... given the results of the last few years. The problem for the Pac-10 may not be a BCS bias .... but rather the conference itself? 8)
I think the main things that hurt the PAC10 these days are... 1. Time zone. They just don't get seen nationally as much as teams from the central and eastern timezone. 2. Historical lack of big name schools beyond USC. I don't want to argue that Oregon or Washington aren't as good a program as Georgia or LSU or whoever. It's just that over the years the perception by just about everybody who doesn't live on the West Coast is that the SEC programs like Georgia, Fla, Tenn, Alabama, LSU, Auburn are superior to all PAC10 programs other than USC. The result is that when USC lost to Oregon State it took a hit that it couldn't recover from by beating the rest of the PAC10 while UF after the loss to Ole Miss had games that the voters percieved as big time games. Again I don't want to argue that they are right or wrong. It's just the way it is. So while UF did pay immediately for the loss to ole miss by falling frm #4 to #12 as did USC for it's loss to OSU falling from 1 to 9. But after that USC could not gain traction with it's schedule while Fla shot back up by beating it's SEC foes. So voters, rightly or wrongly kept USC out of it by undervaluing it's victories and overvaluing the SEC which this year was clearly not as good as advertised either.
Gaterz, absolutely. I think the Big10 is just screwed up. They added Penn State and didn't come through with the other addition (be it ND or whoever) they need to become a 12 team conference. As for the 'advantage', there is no advantage at all. There is no escaping any team that may historically give you trouble... Such as your recent Gator struggles with Auburn... or as USC would have it, with Oregon State. They have to play them every year.. and there is no escaping USC.. The advantage is in having a beauty pageant game at the end of all this in which one team will clearly be held above the others... Hell we have seen teams from Super Conferences lose the conference title game and still play for the BCS NC... We've regularly seen 1 and even a 2 loss team win the conference title game and catapult into the BCS CG. We've even seen a super conference team NOT making the conference CG and make the title game. As Terry said, it has way more to do with perception...and for some reason, what happens on the field never seems to be retained in pollsters memory.