OSU Big 12 Football Champions

[azbadpuppy]

But, conversely, the case made that OSU should be #2 is about the same level of 'weak'.  AS you said earlier, if they had beaten ISU, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Beat the teams you're supposed to beat.  The polls don't care what happened to you that week.  If that were the case, OU would be in the top 5 simply by virtue of their being decimated by injury in the last half of the season.

Yeah I agree the ISU loss is pretty weak, but other factors aren't so weak when you start to look at comparisons.

I also agree that there are no excuses for teams poor performances, and in the end nobody cares. But, it does seem like a truly great team should be able to overcome injuries with adjustments and good coaching and not let it ruin the entire season (and I am a big OU fan btw). Honestly though, OU has more issues than just injuries right now.

I think it just boiled down to the fact that Alabama is a Marquee team, and OSU is not. Plain and simple.

[nathanm]

Wouldn't end of year rankings be more significant, as they show how good teams actually turned out to be?

No. As I said, teams change throughout the year. Injuries, suspensions, and whatever else can wreak havoc. Other than the first week or two of the season, the as-played ranking is a more useful gauge, IMO.

You can claim bias all you want, but this isn't a great place to do it. It's simply not clear-cut enough. I understand the argument for OSU, and it's pretty compelling. But their loss is also compelling. Had it been to a top 10 or even top 25, you may not have gotten the same result. It was close. I see both sides very easily. The rematch argument is also a good one, but has love all to do with the rules governing the BCS system.

[AquaMan]

Reports are that the Bamy coach voted OSU 9th in his voting for the rankings. There's your human factor that takes up about 2/3 of the vote.

I've asked before, and no one knows of course, but think about it...Is there anyone who seriously thinks OSU would not score a single touchdown against LSU? Bamy didn't....couldn't.

Is there anyone who seriously believes that the SEC isn't the recipient of a huge public relations benefit from ESPN and that it doesn't corrupt the process?

Ever heard the phrase, "On any given day?" The Giants dang near beat the best Packer team I've ever seen. Sometimes OSU has played the role of giant killer too.

Finally, and most importantly to me, if the rankings are BS during the year, and they are, why would rankings at the end of the year be any more credible?

[nathanm]

Reports are that the Bamy coach voted OSU 9th in his voting for the rankings. There's your human factor that takes up about 2/3 of the vote.

When the human polls counted for less, people complained. Now that they count more, people complain. No matter what, people aren't going to be happy. (except maybe with a playoff, but probably not even then)

And no, reports are wrong. Saban put OSU at 4th, behind Stanford. Not some indefensibly stupid vote like OSU for 9th. If it makes you feel any better, Stoops put OSU at #2. A lot of people did. That's why it was close.

[erfalf]

Someone may have to refresh my memory cause I can't recall the entire BCS history. I vaguely recall people moaning and groaning about all the computers screwing up the BCS back in the day. Did they represent more than 1/3 or the BCS at any point?

Regarding the computer polls: the thing with them is they do exactly what they are told. They don't have tendencies to vote one conference higher over another (unless programmed). It seems to me that it would be more "fair" to have the powers that be come to an agreement on what attributes are most important in deserving to play in the national title game and let multiple computers (like we have now) come to that conclusion for us, without looney coaches voting OSU 7th (this is crazy no matter how you slice it, 4th I can). Humans are imperfect and will vote the way they do for a myriad of reasons. ESPECIALLY coaches for goodness sake who literally have skin in the game. On that note, if you are going to have a coaches poll than all coaches should be allowed to vote, not just those selected. Say all active D1 coaches, that would be interesting.

The reason I like the computers is, because the rules are set up at the beginning, not the end. If you don't like the result, change the rules next year, but not in the middle of the season. With humans, the rules are ALWAYS changing.

[Red Arrow]

Regarding the computer polls:

GIGO.  Change the programming.

[jne]

Without reading this whole thread....
OSU should have beaten Iowa State (Holder should get kicked in the nads for scheduling that Friday night game - it also should have been cancelled after the plane crash), OSU still got hosed (not the first), the BCS is a joke...Bowl games don't really mean anything anymore.  At least a 4 team playoff is probably necessary. There are too many conflicting interests represented in the polling systems and it has an arbitrary 2 to 1 ruling over objective measures. If human polls were any contribution, they would have given us the game we all want to see....

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/harris-voter-i-think-bcs-just-mess

[AquaMan]

The human factor is unavoidable, whether its voting or programming or setting criteria. I do feel better that Stoops voted OSU 2nd. He was right. I predicted early in the season that OU would be an 8-3 team and that OSU may end up winning the conference.

I am soundly against a playoff system though. Go back way before BCS. When it was bowl dominated and there were only two ratings that were important. One was the sportswriters of the UPI who followed the teams closely, wrote about them and whose biases were pretty well offset by regional location. The other was the AP Coaches poll which factored in the opinions of coaches who had actually played against each other. The AP had its own biases by conference but they were pretty accurate. For instance in the game of the century, (the last century) each of the coaches who had played both Nebraska and OU were polled. They most all agreed that it would be close but Nebraska had the edge with Johnny Rodgers. Nebraska eaked it out with a kickoff return by Rogers to win 31-29 iirc.

The counterbalance was the bowl game system. Since they were conference oriented (Rosebowl always pitted the Big Ten winner against the PAC 10 winner) it didn't matter to those conferences who the other two thought were the best, they were fighting to win the Rosebowl. Same went for the other bowls. The Cotton was important to the Big 8, The Orange Bowl was the East coast bowl etc. There were polls during the season and post season AP and UPI polls and post bowl game polls.

The nice thing was, there was opportunity for every conference, every team and every fan to claim something. It was not a professional league, it was college student athletes. Occassionally there would be a consensus poll winner but not very often. Now with the BCS and the increasing pressure to make as much money as possible there is pressure to influence the polls all season long in order to claim a "winner take all" national championship system, when in fact its just a scramble for a pot full of money.

It worked pretty well. Ironically, we hated it at the time. We never got to play USC or UCLA unless a quirk of scheduling to prove we were at the same level. Still, it worked.

[azbadpuppy]

No. As I said, teams change throughout the year. Injuries, suspensions, and whatever else can wreak havoc. Other than the first week or two of the season, the as-played ranking is a more useful gauge, IMO.

You can claim bias all you want, but this isn't a great place to do it. It's simply not clear-cut enough. I understand the argument for OSU, and it's pretty compelling. But their loss is also compelling. Had it been to a top 10 or even top 25, you may not have gotten the same result. It was close. I see both sides very easily. The rematch argument is also a good one, but has love all to do with the rules governing the BCS system.

As long as the voting/polling is set up the way it is in the BCS, there will be bias. This is but one example of it. One only has to also look at Michigan getting chosen for a BCS game over Michigan State, and about a half dozen more deserving teams. Why? Because they are, well, Michigan.

[nathanm]

Yes, the at large picks are as subject to whim as the non-BCS bowls where tie-ins don't force a particular choice. That has zero bearing whatsoever on whether OSU should be ranked #2 or #3.

You know, there was a time when people were just happy to have a clearly deserving top 5 or top 10 team. Now whiners gotta whine about everything. That's probably the worst part of the BCS system.

[Conan71]

Is there anyone who seriously believes that the SEC isn't the recipient of a huge public relations benefit from ESPN and that it doesn't corrupt the process?

John Holcomb pointed out ESPN, his former employer, "...pays the SEC 'truckloads' of cash for the right to broadcast their games" essentially saying the PR fix for the SEC was in for weeks prior to last weekend.

I agree with azbad, I believe the final top 25 is the most relevant way to analyze the SOS issue.  Properly-staffed and coached teams have the depth to overcome injuries. 

I really do find it ridiculous that two teams from the same conference and division can play for the national championship.

That's all I'm going to say about it until after the Fiesta Bowl.  If OSU completely decimates Stanford and there's another yawner between Bama and LSU, with Alabama winning by a narrow margin, I think most NCAAF followers will know in their own minds who should be wearing the #1 crown.

Oh, one more observation: it's been impressive to see the volume of people I know to be OU fans speaking up on behalf of the Pokes.

[Teatownclown]

Meh...college fottball sux, thanks to money/TV....and college bball is in preseason all the way into April.

The world of sport has changed for the worse and it's not due to technology. It's due to bad behavior and bad ideas based on making more money.

Too bad, Aggies.

[Conan71]

Meh...college fottball sux, thanks to money/TV....and college bball is in preseason all the way into April.

The world of sport has changed for the worse and it's not due to technology. It's due to bad behavior and bad ideas based on making more money.

Too bad, Aggies.

Sports would be great if it weren't for all the money in and around it.

[azbadpuppy]

Yes, the at large picks are as subject to whim as the non-BCS bowls where tie-ins don't force a particular choice. That has zero bearing whatsoever on whether OSU should be ranked #2 or #3.

You know, there was a time when people were just happy to have a clearly deserving top 5 or top 10 team. Now whiners gotta whine about everything. That's probably the worst part of the BCS system.

Wow, you must be from SEC country 

I never said the two were related. I'm pointing out the myriad of bias within the current system.

I think the OSU folks have a lot to gripe about, and aside from the OSU haters and the SEC blowhards, I'm hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees. Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth from the SEC crowd if a one loss team from another conference, who did not win their conference, was playing in the NCG?  It would be epic.

Basically Alabama blew their chance, and now they are getting a redo. Good for them. Fair? I don't think so.

[azbadpuppy]

Sports would be great if it weren't for all the money in and around it.

Ain't that the truth!