[personal] Re: [Husker] BCS - Am I alone?

[dryter at inebraska.com]

I can't believe that I'm posting to this, but the virtue of a playoff  
is that the team that wins is the team that can win through a  
tournament without losing.  The team that wins the tournament may not  
be, on paper, or even 50% of the time as good as some other team, but  
they are the team that won all of their games.  On that day in 1992  
ISU was better than NU.  In the current system, picking an undefeated  
team for the NC is valid if all competition is equal.  In the 80s when  
Miami was an independent, they used scheduling to gain an advantage.   
The question should be whether KSU is better than UT, but is playing a  
B12 schedule the same as playing a B10 or PAC10 schedule?  Obviously  
losing to KSU exposed UT's weaknesses, as did USC losing to Oregon  
State.  Every year it's obvious that there are a handful of teams that  
are arguably better than the rest, and 99% of the time one more game  
would shut everyone up.

Oh, and since both of the teams that pounded Notre Dame have lost, the  
NCAA has foregone the bowls and crowned NDU National Champions.  Not  
because they are better, but because they have the biggest fan  
base/viewership and TV contract.

Derek

Quoting Skylar Dodds <Sklarbodds at cox.net>:

> Hello Husker Fans,
>
> SD> Even 1 game doesn't determine which team is better.  Do you really
> SD> think KSU is better than UT?  Do you really think UCLA is better than
> SD> USC?  How about ISU when they beat NU in
>
> Sorry forgot to finish this sentence before I sent it.
>
> What it should have said, "How about ISU when they beat NU in 1992?"
> NU was ranked #7 and ISU was something like 2-6 coming into the game
> (sorry I can't remember exactly.)"
>
> Sorry to reply to my own post.
>
> --
> Go Skers,
>  Skylar                            mailto:Sklarbodds at cox.net
>
> SD> Hello Husker Fans,
>
> ML>> Problem is, define "best". What criteria can you use to determine who
> ML>> is "best", unless it's whether or not one team would beat another if
> ML>> they played? And how can you know if one team would beat another,
> ML>> unless you actually play the game? If your position is that a person
> ML>> can determine if team A is better than team B without an actual game
> ML>> involved, then we should just skip ALL the games, not just the bowls.
>
> SD> That's still a pretty flawed argument for a playoff though. You claim
> SD> that a playoff is the only way to determine who is the best team, well
> SD> IMHO, the ONLY way to determine who the best team would be over 14
> SD> games, not 2 or 3 in a playoff. That just determines who the 'hottest'
> SD> team is at the end of the year.
>
> SD> Take Pittsburgh last year. They didn't have a very good season, but
> SD> they squeaked into the playoffs and had a great final 4 games.
> SD> Especially after the way they've started this year I don't think
> SD> anyone in their right minds would call them the 'best' team last year.
> SD> They simply got hot at the end (and were helped by some phantom calls
> SD> I might add).
>
> SD> So adding a playoff DOES NOT get you the best team, it just gives you
> SD> a champion.  I would argue that the BCS does a better job figuring out
> SD> who the BEST team is, (even though again we're still looking at
> SD> crowning a 'champion').
>
>
>
> SD> The best way to determine who is the best is to see who plays the best
> SD> over a long stretch of times because you can only get lucky so much.
> SD> That's one thing I love about baseball.  NOBODY makes the playoffs in
> SD> baseball by a fluke.  There's no such thing.  Even then, they still
> SD> play 5-7 times just to make sure that the better team moves on.
>
> SD> Since the sport doesn't allow a best-of-series, IMHO, this is the next
> SD> best thing.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>