Should Rutgers get a shot at the BCS National Championship

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

It may start close, but the speed of Ohio State will be too much for Manningham and the rest of the Wolverine team.

Damn, Jax............we know it'll start close. It'll be 0-0.
For God's sake, try to at least talk up to everyone else's level if you're going to partake in this conversation!

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by marc

No, it's what makes Division 1, Division 1. No reason to conform to what the other divisions are doing. 9-3 teams flat out shouldn't be playing for an NCAA Division 1 football championship.


Besides there's a ton of D3 and D2 schools, there are far fewer D1.

How many times has a 3 loss team won one of those championships?

[marc]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

How many times has a 3 loss team won one of those championships?

I have no idea but it's comparing apples and oranges. As I said there are WAY more D2 and D3 teams, thus more undefeated or 1 loss teams, thus fewer 3 loss teams in the playoffs.

[Vris]

If the 3 loss teams are so inferior, it shouldn't matter since they would bow out early anyway, right?

[marc]

Originally Posted by Vris

If the 3 loss teams are so inferior, it shouldn't matter since they would bow out early anyway, right?

No it does matter because they didn't prove themselves to be a top team during the regular season so they shouldn't be given a chance to get hot or lucky in a playoff format.

[marc]

Besides folks, none of your respective teams want any part of a Jim Tressel coached team in a playoff format.

[toolboxnj]

If Florida loses the SEC championship and Rutgers runs the table, I don't see why Rutgers shouldn't be in the title game. That is, though, alot of "ifs".

[BrentBlades]

Originally Posted by Tribe Fan 24

I may just be simple minded, but I just don't think that you can just look at the strength of schedule numbers and say that it "proves" that the Big East is on par with the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, or Big 12. What I am going to say is PURELY my opinion.

I think that if you drop a Florida, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Cal, Texas, Oklahoma into the Big East and play a Big East schedule, every one of those teams would be (probably) undefeated to this point also. (I am not considering non-conference games.)

I think that there is something to be said for having strong teams in your conference year after year. Rutgers has really only been good for a season or two. Louisville and WVa have been pretty good for several years now, but I do not think of them in the same class as teams that are loaded pretty much every year. The Floridas, LSUs, Tennessees, Ohio States, Michigans, USCs, Texas, Oklahomas of the world do it every year. There are occasional dips from year to year, but mostly they are the strongest teams in their conferences every year.

I conversely think that if you take a Rutgers, Louisville, or WVa and drop them into the SEC or Big 10, Pac 10, or Big 12, and play one of those conferences schedules, they would NOT be undefeated. I think that I just cant see a Rutgers (or a Louisville or WVa) going into LSU, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Cal, Texas, Oklahoma and winning. I think that they might be competitive, but would lose more often than not. I think that the middle to bottom of the SEC and Big 10 is much stronger than the middle to bottom of the Big East. After this weekend, the same could be said for the Big 12 also.

I intend no disrespect to Rutgers/Louisville/WVa and their accomplishments. They have had great seasons and I applaud them for that. I just think that if they played in a more powerful football conference, we probably would not be having this conversation. I do not consider the Big East as a football power conference at this point. I also recognize that this is purely my opinion. I intend no malice or disrespect towards anyone.

I think that a winner take all playoff has been needed for several years in D1 college football. I think that this computer poll, convaluted BCS mumbo-jumbo is for the birds. We can sit here and hash and re-hash, but we need to play it on the field. That is the only way to really decide anything.

My 2 Pennies,

Kevin

Okay first let me say I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the last paragraph.

Now I don't disagree totally about just taking the SOS numbers, however I still feel that is a lot better indicator then going on a teams prestige they've built up over the years. Let's take a team like LSU for instance, in my opinion they are the most over rated team in all of the country. They have one win over a team that was ranked (Tenn.) and have 4 wins against teams with winning records (3 of which are only over .500 by one game) but we give them the benefit of the doubt because of their program history.

If we do the same for say, Ohio State they also have one win over a ranked team (Texas), and have wins against three teams (including Texas) over teams with a winning record. And once again we give them the benefit of the doubt because of their history. I'm not saying OSU isn't the number 1 (or 2 with Michigan) team in the country but with CFB we are just never going to know considering nobody really plays anyone.

All of these opinions and SOS numbers and this are all basically nothing more then opinion. But because we have this perception that the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, etc. are super superior conferences (I'm not saying they are, or they aren't) we give teams from those conferences the benefit of the doubt even if they haven't played great competition or if they have and lost.

Basically what I'm saying is teams get a pass if they have "tradition" and the same works for conferences. I'm still shocked that some people think the Big 12 is still a better conference then the Big East, but people do... why? Because of their tradition. The way scheduling works in CFB we'll never know considering so many "big name" (for lack of a better word) teams duck a lot of tams especially from the Big East. And I don't blame them one bit. If they win they don't get anything out of it cause it's just the Big East who doesn't play anyone. But if they lose they get crapped on by everyone.

Plain and simple these disagreements and difference of opinions will last for a long long time with the way CFB currently works and it'll never change. But the fact that a team can live 2-3 years off their past reputation just drives me nuts, it doesn't make sense and it's a very uneven playing field for teams that aren't in one of the big 4-5 conferences. But then again I think thats something we all already know.

[blueturf]

Count me in with those that think an undefeated Rutgers should play for the National Championship. Even if they are not the 2nd best team, the BCS is set up for the six 'power' conferences. If there are two undefeated teams from those conferences they should play for the NC, regardless of their SOS.

The human polls have 3 major flaws:
1) Preseason rankings have way too much weight on the final polls outcome
2) Somewhat related to #1 - the prestige of the program weighs heavier than the current season's outcome
3) When the loss occurs in the season should never be a factor. A week ago we were discussing Louisville as a possible champ after they beat WVU. A week later both teams have a loss and Louisville drops behind WVU in the polls.

[BrentBlades]

Originally Posted by blueturf

Count me in with those that think an undefeated Rutgers should play for the National Championship. Even if they are not the 2nd best team, the BCS is set up for the six 'power' conferences. If there are two undefeated teams from those conferences they should play for the NC, regardless of their SOS.

The human polls have 3 major flaws:
1) Preseason rankings have way too much weight on the final polls outcome
2) Somewhat related to #1 - the prestige of the program weighs heavier than the current season's outcome
3) When the loss occurs in the season should never be a factor. A week ago we were discussing Louisville as a possible champ after they beat WVU. A week later both teams have a loss and Louisville drops behind WVU in the polls.

Another problem with the human polls (mainly the coaches poll) is the fact that they have an invested interest in how it turns out. For instance one of the reasons you'll never see a OSU vs Michigan rematch in the championship game no matter what is the coaches from the other conferences realize they will be losing a TON of money if only the Big 10 is represented in the championship game. Do you think the coaches from the SEC, Pac 10, Big East, etc. etc. want that to happen? No way. So they'll make sure it doesn't happen.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by toolboxnj

If Florida loses the SEC championship and Rutgers runs the table, I don't see why Rutgers shouldn't be in the title game. That is, though, alot of "ifs".

It will be certainly interesting to see what happens if Rutgers and Arkansas both win out, USC and ND both end up with 2 losses.

[yankeesrule]

Only 2 teams I see having a legit shot at NC game over Rutgers is USC and SEC champ if they win out. No way does Notre Dame deserve it, even if they do beat USC although if they get the W they probably will get the NC game no matter what just because they are freaking Notre Dame and then they will get smoked again by either Mich or OSU

[toolboxnj]

Either way, Rutgers eliminates 100-200 academic classes and fires a few hundred p-t lectures.. but invests money in the football team.... I hope the investment pays off.

[yankeesrule]

Originally Posted by toolboxnj

Either way, Rutgers eliminates 100-200 academic classes and fires a few hundred p-t lectures.. but invests money in the football team.... I hope the investment pays off.

Umm, no where near that many classes that were eliminated. Try more in the 50's range if that many.

And yes, the investment will pay off. Applications are increased meaning they can be more selective making that diploma worth more in the real world. Plus places outside of the northeast become more familiar with the name Rutgers. So yes, this investment will pay off for students and graduates.

[Tribe Fan 24]

Originally Posted by BrentBlades

Okay first let me say I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the last paragraph.

Now I don't disagree totally about just taking the SOS numbers, however I still feel that is a lot better indicator then going on a teams prestige they've built up over the years. Let's take a team like LSU for instance, in my opinion they are the most over rated team in all of the country. They have one win over a team that was ranked (Tenn.) and have 4 wins against teams with winning records (3 of which are only over .500 by one game) but we give them the benefit of the doubt because of their program history.

If we do the same for say, Ohio State they also have one win over a ranked team (Texas), and have wins against three teams (including Texas) over teams with a winning record. And once again we give them the benefit of the doubt because of their history. I'm not saying OSU isn't the number 1 (or 2 with Michigan) team in the country but with CFB we are just never going to know considering nobody really plays anyone.

All of these opinions and SOS numbers and this are all basically nothing more then opinion. But because we have this perception that the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, etc. are super superior conferences (I'm not saying they are, or they aren't) we give teams from those conferences the benefit of the doubt even if they haven't played great competition or if they have and lost.

Basically what I'm saying is teams get a pass if they have "tradition" and the same works for conferences. I'm still shocked that some people think the Big 12 is still a better conference then the Big East, but people do... why? Because of their tradition. The way scheduling works in CFB we'll never know considering so many "big name" (for lack of a better word) teams duck a lot of tams especially from the Big East. And I don't blame them one bit. If they win they don't get anything out of it cause it's just the Big East who doesn't play anyone. But if they lose they get crapped on by everyone.

Plain and simple these disagreements and difference of opinions will last for a long long time with the way CFB currently works and it'll never change. But the fact that a team can live 2-3 years off their past reputation just drives me nuts, it doesn't make sense and it's a very uneven playing field for teams that aren't in one of the big 4-5 conferences. But then again I think thats something we all already know.

I can see your side as well! I agree with you about a team living for a period of time off of past rep. I get a little bent when I hear about Notre Dame having special rules factored in that do not apply to the rest of the football world. (Boise St. also this year with the #12 BCS rule....they, for example, have already shown me that they are not yet ready for prime time when they got SMOKED by Georgia last season.)

I guess that is what inspired me to write my original post. I think that there is a significant difference in D1 football and D1 basketball. The "giants" and the "giant killers" are not too far apart in BB. (hence, the #12 seeds beating #5 fairly regularly nowadays.) I think that there is a much bigger chasm between the mid-majors and the powers in football.

I think that the only way that we will ever be able to figure all of this out is to have a real honest to goodness playoff. Who knows, I would think that an unexpected team could beat a "traditional" program sometimes....it is the nature of the system. Let's just hope that we (someday) get the forum that will allow this to happen.

Kevin

[Big Hugg]

Originally Posted by Tribe Fan 24

Boise St. also this year with the #12 BCS rule....they, for example, have already shown me that they are not yet ready for prime time when they got SMOKED by Georgia last season.

Yeah, but that was last year's team. They lost 4 games last season, they're not even the same team. It's not even relevent.

[Faroo6]

Two weeks ago, Louisville and West Virginia were number #3 and #5. If Rutgers can run the table against them, then yeah I think they deserve to be in the BCS Championship Game.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Faroo6

Two weeks ago, Louisville and West Virginia were number #3 and #5. If Rutgers can run the table against them, then yeah I think they deserve to be in the BCS Championship Game.

But you then fall into the trap that if Rutgers could beat them they obviously weren't that good to begin with.

[TwinsFan86]

If they remain undefeated, they defintely should be in the National Championship game.

[Tribe Fan 24]

Originally Posted by Big Hugg

Yeah, but that was last year's team. They lost 4 games last season, they're not even the same team. It's not even relevent.

I agree with you, and that was last year, but.....

do you not agree that Boise St. would be in real trouble if they played in a more prominant conference. (Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, ect.) They have a nice program and I applaud their accomplishments. (I actually like them and pull for them. I would have LOVED to have seen them beat Georgia last season.) They were blown out against the only 2 ranked teams they played last year in the reg. season. (They played BC tough in their bowl game.) But, do you really think that they belong in the same category/rank as the top 10 or so BCS teams? I personally do not, but that is part of the reason why I think we need a playoff.

I also think that if BSU wants to be taken seriously as a "real" football power in D1, they need to beef up the non-conference schedule. I have checked the BSU website and they have some Pac 10 teams (Oregon St., Washington and Oregon) and a MAC team (Miami of Ohio.) so maybe they are trying to do this.
I'm sure that they are becoming the "team no one wants to schedule" for fear of an upset. We will see what happens if they go to a BCS bowl this year.

Kevin