| FTBL Predicting the AP Top 10 for Week 1 (Phil Steele):

[TerryP]

Right, the BCS did what we asked it to do. Doesn't mean they picked the best team. The bowl system took Michigan State and Notre Dame ahead of undefeated Bama in 66. It did what it was intended to do. Play politics and show bias, but it didn't mean they were correct or that's the way the cookie would have crumbled under the BCS system. Nor do I think the BCS winners are the way the cookie would always crumble under the 4 team playoff. Thus the debate these days for an 8 team playoff.

The BCS consistently put the #1 and #2 team against each other. That was its purpose. It succeeded.

Just because we're under the playoff system doesn't mean those computer models and polls have ceased to exist. It's been documented how the BCS would have had it correct in today's era. The issue boils down to so many being against the BCS and therein are refusing to acknowledge how it got things right.

I do find it ironic seeing "bias" mentioned in an discussion against a system that removed bias from half of its formula. The notion of "humans will do better than computers" was wrong from the start.

 

[TUSKtimes]

The BCS consistently put the #1 and #2 team against each other. That was its purpose. It succeeded.

Just because we're under the playoff system doesn't mean those computer models and polls have ceased to exist. It's been documented how the BCS would have had it correct in today's era. The issue boils down to so many being against the BCS and therein are refusing to acknowledge how it got things right.

I do find it ironic seeing "bias" mentioned in an discussion against a system that removed bias from half of its formula. The notion of "humans will do better than computers" was wrong from the start.

Terry, I'm much more inclined to think the reason the BCS was as proficient as it was was only because of the human factor. Otherwise, it was more than disconcerting to hear teams like Boise State, according to the computers, being labeled the best team. Besides, regardless of which side of the argument you're on, when you pick only 2 teams out of the pool of college football there is no way to make something like that foolproof every year. Even for your computers.

Oklahoma State had a beef and they suggested they were being left out because of name recognition in 2011. The same argument, by the way, TCU suggested in the 4 team playoff. Miami in 2000, the barn in 2004, Michigan with their 2006 club, Ohio State in 1998, In 2008 Texas lost out to Oklahoma, even though they beat the Sooners earlier in the season. 4 or 5 teams had a beef when LSU made it in in 2007, USC in 2003. To name a few.

Lots of teams didn't think as fondly of the BCS era as Alabama. And that's the rub. Trying to pick the two best teams that aren't named Alabama in the BCS system, has been an issue and plenty of controversies have come from it.

 

[Max]

Oklahoma State had a beef and they suggested they were being left out because of name recognition in 2011

Oh my god. Really? What beef did they have other than their own embarrassment over losing to a non-ranked team? The computers are whom to thank for that one. They got it right.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Oh my god. Really? What beef did they have other than their own embarrassment over losing to a non-ranked team? The computers are whom to thank for that one. They got it right.

Spoken like a true Bama fan. The Cowboys feel differently. My list of teams I mentioned throughout the BCS era is only to suggest that the BCS was not foolproof. Plenty of fans felt they got the shaft and couldn't wait for the 4 team playoff to begin.

 

[252BAMA]

Right, the BCS did what we asked it to do. Doesn't mean they picked the best team. The bowl system took Michigan State and Notre Dame ahead of undefeated Bama in 66. It did what it was intended to do. Play politics and show bias, but it didn't mean they were correct or that's the way the cookie would have crumbled under the BCS system. Nor do I think the BCS winners are the way the cookie would always crumble under the 4 team playoff. Thus the debate these days for an 8 team playoff.

Bowl system? In 1966!? What Bowl system? Michigan State and Notre Dame didn't even go to a Bowl. MSU because of Big 10 "no repeat" rule, and ND because they were too "uppity" to go to a Bowl back then.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Bowl system? In 1966!? What Bowl system? Michigan State and Notre Dame didn't even go to a Bowl. MSU because of Big 10 "no repeat", and ND because they were too "uppity" to go to a Bowl back then.

Damned facts...

 

[TerryP]

@TUSKtimes, the problem lies here when you mention '11 and the BCS worked, and worked well.

OSU didn't get jobbed. By any means. They got exactly what they deserved when you consider the two teams. It has nothing to do with being an Okie fan or a Bama fan. All that's required is honesty. If there is any "recognition" that came into play it was recognized and here's how.

Okie loses to an unranked team and finishes with one loss.
Bama loses to the #1 ranked team and finishes with one loss.

There is no debate here on which is more deserving or which had a better resume. Flip the two teams and their resumes and I would have the same opinion for Okie. They would have deserved to be there and would have earned their position.

**As a side note: the fact here were 45 or so drafted players from both teams in that 2011 game demonstrates where the best two teams were found.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Bowl system? In 1966!? What Bowl system? Michigan State and Notre Dame didn't even go to a Bowl. MSU because of Big 10 "no repeat" rule, and ND because they were too "uppity" to go to a Bowl back then.

Bowl system was used only to imply the era we were in. Otherwise, what would you call it? But the fact neither team played in a bowl and Bama shellacked Nebraska in the Orange Bowl would suggest the politics and bias we were living through at the time in the name of what a national champion really was.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Bowl system was used only to imply the era we were in. Otherwise, what would you call it? But the fact neither team played in a bowl and Bama shellacked Nebraska in the Orange Bowl would suggest the politics and bias we were living through at the time in the name of what a national champion really was.

No, the bowl games were still treated as team rewards then. Final polls were taken before the bowl games then. AP poll changed in 1968 and UPI in 1974 - just after Bama's NC but bowl loss to ND. The polls' timing hurt and helped us over the years.

 

[TUSKtimes]

@TUSKtimes, the problem lies here when you mention '11 and the BCS worked, and worked well.

OSU didn't get jobbed. By any means. They got exactly what they deserved when you consider the two teams. It has nothing to do with being an Okie fan or a Bama fan. All that's required is honesty. If there is any "recognition" that came into play it was recognized and here's how.

Okie loses to an unranked team and finishes with one loss.
Bama loses to the #1 ranked team and finishes with one loss.

There is no debate here on which is more deserving or which had a better resume. Flip the two teams and their resumes and I would have the same opinion for Okie. They would have deserved to be there and would have earned their position.

**As a side note: the fact here were 45 or so drafted players from both teams in that 2011 game demonstrates where the best two teams were found.

You and shotgun seem to be concerned that I feel they should have gone ahead of Bama. That would be wrong. I said they had a beef and then told you specifically what it was. That they were missing the championship because of name recognition. That was their beef.

Again, every team I mentioned had a beef with the BCS and when you select only 2 teams you will always be coming up short. Is the BCS better than the bowl system? Sure. Is the 4 team playoff better than the BCS? Absolutely. Is the 8 team model better than the 4 team model? Who knows, but as @50+yeartidefan made mention, it's coming soon to an HDTV near you.

 

[TUSKtimes]

No, the bowl games were still treated as team rewards then. Final polls were taken before the bowl games then. AP poll changed in 1968 and UPI in 1974 - just after Bama's NC but bowl loss to ND. The polls' timing hurt and helped us over the years.

No what? That the bowl era and beyond had many faces and rules over 120 years of its existence? Conceded. That the bowl system era was full of politics and backroom bargaining? Oh yeah. That the BCS was a better system for naming national champs? I certainly think so. That the playoffs are better yet? For my money. That we need an 8 team playoff? Not necessarily, but it's coming.

 

[252BAMA]

You and shotgun seem to be concerned that I feel they should have gone ahead of Bama. That would be wrong. I said they had a beef and then told you specifically what it was. That they were missing the championship because of name recognition. That was their beef.

Again, every team I mentioned had a beef with the BCS and when you select only 2 teams you will always be coming up short. Is the BCS better than the bowl system? Sure. Is the 4 team playoff better than the BCS? Absolutely. Is the 8 team model better than the 4 team model? Who knows, but as @50+yeartidefan made mention, it's coming soon to an HDTV near you.

Very painful to agree with you on this. Had rather Bama be left out than play an extra game for the sake of TV revenue. There has NEVER, EVER been more than 4 teams worthy of being called National Champions. Very rarely has there been as many as three.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Very painful to agree with you on this. Had rather Bama be left out than play an extra game for the sake of TV revenue. There has NEVER, EVER been more than 4 teams worthy of being called National Champions. Very rarely has there been as many as three.

I can only speak for myself here, but one of the problems I had with 8 teams is because most years we have at least 2 or 3 dominate teams that look like they could legitimately win it all and Bama has always been one of them. But suppose we weren't looking at Alabama and Clemson, maybe Georgia being singled out all this season as being the elite of the elite? Then, I might feel different if more teams were in a playoff that legitimately matches up with the top 2 or 3. Maybe a lot of my prejudice is predicated on this premise alone since 2014. I really haven't seen enough of the sample size to know if the landscape is going to change beyond where we are since the playoffs began.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

And the debate rages. But UGA had legit bitch about being left out last year.
Lost late to #1 team ( at end of season)
Big 10 champs. Pac 10 champs.
Anyway. Reverse with bama n uga and we would be bitching

 

[TerryP]

There has NEVER, EVER been more than 4 teams worthy of being called National Champions. Very rarely has there been as many as three.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

..
@252BAMA ...... never ever , uh.....thats a long time....
Many years had multiple NCs....
To many factors to agree with you...
How could UGA in 2018 be in top 4.....most of year....lose a heartbreak game and not be worthly of at least saying...."they might have had a shot, you know”.......

 

[252BAMA]

..
@252BAMA ...... never ever , uh.....thats a long time....
Many years had multiple NCs....
To many factors to agree with you...
How could UGA in 2018 be in top 4.....most of year....lose a heartbreak game and not be worthly of at least saying...."they might have had a shot, you know”.......

Multiple NCs means only that there were two worthy. Doesn't mean there were more than four. And you're going to have to come up with something better than a 11-3 UGA team to convince me that was a fifth one. Don't bother because there has NEVER, EVER been more than four.

 

[Max]

How could UGA in 2018 be in top 4.....most of year....lose a heartbreak game and not be worthly of at least saying...."they might have had a shot, you know”.......

In the CFP rankings they were only in the top four one week (same week they lost to Bama in the SECCG.) At that time their ranking was earned. After that loss they didn't have a leg to stand on if they wanted to compare a two loss team to a one loss OSU team (especially with the Buckeyes having the B1G championship in tow.)

Anyway. Reverse with bama n uga and we would be bitching

You may be right with some Bama fans here but not me. If Bama would have lost in the SECCG, they're out. It would have been clear cut. We would have been watching...

1. Clemson
2. Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma
4. UGA

 

[50+yeartidefan]

In the CFP rankings they were only in the top four one week (same week they lost to Bama in the SECCG.) At that time their ranking was earned. After that loss they didn't have a leg to stand on if they wanted to compare a two loss team to a one loss OSU team (especially with the Buckeyes having the B1G championship in tow.)


You may be right with some Bama fans here but not me. If Bama would have lost in the SECCG, they're out. It would have been clear cut. We would have been watching...

1. Clemson
2. Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma
4. UGA

So ... as opposed to ur and @12gage thoughts .... bam... you put them in top 4 in this senecio.... and uga was 11-1 going into sec cg .... same as bama...
Sure there are more than 4.... it shall be proven when playoffs go to 8 and a5-8 wins...
Believe what you may @12gage .... but moon aint made of cheese

 

[Max]

Believe what you may @12gage .... but moon aint made of cheese

Yep. Just like #8 isn't a playoff winner.