Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you apply the BCS formula, which you all seem to love

I don't think I have seen anyone here giving the BCS or the formula any love...

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
Apparently you think that the transitive property applies to sports. It doesn't, and never has. It can be one piece of the puzzle, but only a sporting neophyte would conclude A is better than C solely due to the reason that A beat B and C lost to B. Remember, Cave Man, the Atlanta Hawks do beat the Spurs once in a while.

Sure it isn't exact, but it's the closest to a playoff that we have. Are there basketball teams that win the national championship when they aren't necessarily the best? Of course. And that's one of the main reasons March Madness is so awesome.

P-Worm
 
Doesn't matter. The only metric we have here is common opponent. Utah beat them, USC lost to them.

So what? You're not seriously advancing the argument that Oregon State is a better team than USC, right? They were for one game to be sure, but overall? The only way you could make a case that Utah is a better team is if you believe the transitive property in sports, which as I said earlier, just doesn't hold water.


QUICK: Who's the better team, Florida or Wake Forest? Florida or Vanderbilt? Seeing a common team? Both of those teams (other than Florida) beat Mississippi, who beat Florida. Answer honestly. WHO IS BETTER between Florida, Wake Forest, and Vanderbilt?
 
The whole Utah/Oregon State/USC thing is laughable. Come on. Seriously?

If you want to say "well, that's all we have to compare" then you're still wrong because USC played Oregon State in Corvalis and Utah played them in Salt Lake, so the argument still holds no water.

In this way of thinking one could say that since Vanderbilt beat Ole Miss, and Ole Miss beat Florida, then Vanderbilt must be better than Florida. Oh, except for the fact that Florida crushed Vanderbilt.

Are you kidding me?!?
:rolleyes:

If you believe Utah is better than USC, which means you believe Vanderbilt is better than Florida, then you need to get your head checked.


EDIT: Sorry badandy, I didn't realize you had already used a similar argument. I got so fired up by the ridiculousness of it all I didn't bother to read your post! :)
 
In this way of thinking one could say that since Vanderbilt beat Ole Miss, and Ole Miss beat Florida, then Vanderbilt must be better than Florida. Oh, except for the fact that Florida crushed Vanderbilt.

Except that Vandy and Florida played each other so we have that to compare. Since USC and Utah didn't play each other, we only have common opponent to compare the two. And so far that indicates that Utah would win in that matchup.

Look, the computers have Utah ranked higher than USC, based on their SOS. And the coaches have them ranked awfully close, they are only one spot separated in the BCS standings after all.

SLC
 
So what? You're not seriously advancing the argument that Oregon State is a better team than USC, right?

The whole Utah/Oregon State/USC thing is laughable. Come on. Seriously?

It doesn't matter what any of us "think". The fact is, there is only one measurement, and that's common opponent, and Utah is on top by that measurement. You can yabber all you want, but it will be meaningless. I say let's settle it on the field - with a playoff. :p
 
We need to stop this whole transitive property nonsense. It could go on forever. #7 Utah and #5 Oklahoma both played TCU at their home fields. Utah won by a field goal, Oklahoma won by 25. Who cares? They are entirely different games, but they both end with the same result.

I only bring this up because TCU was Utah's toughest game of the year, whereas TCU won't even fall into the top 5 toughest games for Oklahoma this year. Should Utah be penalized for this? Probably not. I walk away from this knowing only one thing: Utah has not been tested this year.

Give Utah the loser of the Big 12 or SEC championship game and let them have the opportunity to prove they are worth the "hype". When the game is over and they were beat as bad as Hawaii was last year, maybe we will think twice again before sending another "buster" into a BCS game.
 
I know I need to be the bigger man here and just let this go, but I can't seem to. Ha ha!

Except that Vandy and Florida played each other so we have that to compare.

The whole Vandy/Florida thing was exactly my point! It proves without a shred of doubt that this logic is just ridiculous.

By this logic Vanderbilt is better than Florida. But lo and behold! Florida crushed Vanderbilt when they played! How can this be?!

The fact is, there is only one measurement, and that's common opponent, and Utah is on top by that measurement.

But that measurement is skewed from the get-go, which I mentioned in my last post. Those two games can not be compared because not only were they played in different locations, but they were also conference vs. non-conference games. And if you say those things don't matter then you are a fool.

The issue here isn't whether Utah is better than USC. I couldn't care less because we'll never know. The issue is the Bizarre-O World logic that is being used to come to that conclusion.
 
But that measurement is skewed from the get-go, which I mentioned in my last post. Those two games can not be compared because not only were they played in different locations, but they were also conference vs. non-conference games. And if you say those things don't matter then you are a fool.

No, you're the fool. You think that personal opinion carries more weight than actually playing the game.

The issue here

Who the f*** appointed you "issue decider"?

isn't whether Utah is better than USC. I couldn't care less because we'll never know.

You're right, unless, by some un-BCS chance that they get selected to play one another in a bowl game (which isn't going to happen).

The issue is the Bizarre-O World logic that is being used to come to that conclusion.

My argument is weak. Your argument is nonexistent.
 
No, you're the fool. You think that personal opinion carries more weight than actually playing the game.

Personal opinion? Care to comment on the points I made about Vandy and Florida? I would sincerely love to hear any.

Who the f*** appointed you "issue decider"?

I think you're getting a little too worked up here, buddy. It was "my" issue that I was stating in "my" post. I wasn't forcing that upon anyone else.

You're right, unless, by some un-BCS chance that they get selected to play one another in a bowl game (which isn't going to happen).

Agreed.

My argument is weak. Your argument is nonexistent.

That's not fair. I've made some valid points, but none have been addressed.
 
It doesn't matter what any of us "think". The fact is, there is only one measurement, and that's common opponent, and Utah is on top by that measurement.

But that measurement doesn't mean anything substantial, at all. The Florida example proves it. The fact that SLC so thoroughly missed his reading comprehension and logic lessons as a child proves my point even further. Florida played Vanderbilt and wailed on them shows that the common opponent metric is next to useless.

I'll give you another measurement: raw talent. Coaching can change, conditions change, but our players are flat out faster. They're bigger. This doesn't always win us games (as evidenced by the Oregon State loss), but better players (through our fantastic recruiting budget and program) usually play better football most of the time. Again, a team like the Lakers in the NBA: They have superior talent to almost any team they play. They have Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Bynum. That's big four. They're flat out better than the front four of most any team in the NBA. Does it mean they win every game? No. They win most of them.

EDIT: And I don't know what caveman's problem is here. He's trying to use a completely worthless statistic and then getting mad at people who prove it's inherent worthlessness. Calm down. Everyone knows USC is better than Utah except Utah fans. Texas fans know so, UCLA fans know so, Notre Dame fans know so. Your little transitive property rule (which, as stated above, doesn't mean anything) just doesn't hold a candle to common sense. Better funding and national recognition attract more top talent and thus perform at a higher level. It's not a secret.
 
But that measurement doesn't mean anything substantial, at all.

It means more than people who just say so.

The Florida example proves it.

Utah's undefeated.

The fact that SLC so thoroughly missed his reading comprehension and logic lessons as a child proves my point even further.

Nice insult. It's no wonder you and evilgeek have the same positions.

I'll give you another measurement: raw talent.

You'll get no argument from me. If it only came down to talent, then USC should be "champions" every year. Yet for some reason Pete cannot seem to get them to play as a team every single game.

EDIT: And I don't know what caveman's problem is here.

Not "what"; "who".

He's trying to use a completely worthless statistic

No, it's the only factual piece of evidence there is, and it favors Utah.

...and then getting mad at people who prove it's inherent worthlessness.

No, I just don't like people who cast personal insults, such as "fool" and "missing reading lessons". Those types of individuals are often referred to as "bullies" by society. It's those who behave like this that are responsible for the downturn of this discussion. MacDawg and I have had strong disagreements as well, but we have remained civilized in our discourse. That's all I'm after - civilized discourse.

Calm down.

You and evilgeek seem to think you're the Kings here who can tell everyone else what to do and what the rules of the discussion are. You can't. Get over it. If you want me to calm down, then keep the tenor of your comments civilized.

Everyone knows USC is better than Utah except Utah fans.

Nobody knows if USC or Utah is the better team because they have not played each other. (I am not a fan of Utah - in fact my leanings toward USC go back to Charles White's days.) But I have seen Utah play and I've seen USC play several times and Utah looks to be the better team. All we have as a fact is one common opponent and Utah won, while USC lost. You're letting personal incredulity get in the way of rational thinking.
 
The fact that SLC so thoroughly missed his reading comprehension and logic lessons as a child proves my point even further.

Well now I guess I'm going to have to go hang myself. Badandy thinks I missed my reading comprehension and logic lessons :D . You know Badandy, when you throw out weak and ambiguous insults during a discussion, it goes a long way to show how lacking your maturity is. One thing I did learn during my "lessons" as a child was that throwing a temper tantrum when people don't agree with me doesn't help one bit.

Are you going to tell me that the fact that Oregon State beat USC and lost to the Utes means nothing at all? As far as I know, Oregon State has a great shot at taking the Pac-10 crown this year. They could be playing in the Rose Bowl instead of USC. And that's in a "Down" year for the Pac that you keep bitching that we shouldn't judge USC for. If it really is a down year for the Pac 10, and USC shouldn't be judged based on it's conference opponents, they should at least prove it to us and win the conference. That may happen still, but unfortunately for USC that rests solely in the hands of Oregon State. That's right, USC's destiny this season is in the hands of another team, a team that was defeated by the University of Utah.

Get over yourself Badandy, you're making yourself look foolish.



SLC
 
Should Utah, Boise State and Ball State be in BCS mix?

Lots of testosterone flowing in here... and we all have our opinions. I think the "common opponent" metric is just one thing to look at, but I don't think it is THE metric that ends a discussion. There are too many other factors to consider.

Mark Schlabach of ESPN weighs in on the issue, and I think he gives it a good look. It isn't from the perspective of anyone here who has a dawg in the hunt. I quote the whole article, but provide the link too. This is just for your consideration.

There is still a lot of football left to play, and a lot can happen to sort things out. Nobody is immune to a loss... remember West Virginia/Pitt, USC/Stanford, USC/UCLA, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Oklahoma/Kansas State and more from years past when the invincible were shown to be vulnerable.

My opinion? Utah could not hang in the SEC or Big 12 at all. Good team, but not great. They just don't have the talent. USC? Good team. Maybe a great team. Would they win in a playoff? Maybe. Hell, even the 2 undefeated teams, Texas Tech and Alabama are probably not going to make it. Most think Florida will be there against Texas. There are several teams that have a case. Only 2 will play for the mythical NC.

The "bad news" is... ESPN is negotiating for the BCS games for a 5 year deal. We are not likely to see a playoff any time soon... and Herbstreit says... never.

Link to ESPN story

Mark Schlabach - ESPN said:
On The Mark: Should Utah, Boise State and Ball State be in BCS mix?

Three of the five unbeaten teams left in major college football reside in non-BCS conferences.

Do you really think they would be unbeaten if they played anywhere else?

With only four weeks left in the 2008 season, three teams from non-BCS leagues are in position to earn a lucrative spot in a BCS bowl game.

Utah is 10-0 with two regular-season games to play and sits at No. 7 in the BCS standings. No. 9 Boise State is 9-0 with three games to play. No. 14 Ball State, known more for its canning jars and alumnus David Letterman than football, also is a perfect 9-0.

Only one of the aforementioned teams is guaranteed a chance to play in one of the five BCS bowl games. Under the current BCS rules, a team from outside the six BCS conferences -- ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC -- automatically qualifies if it finishes in the top 12 of the final BCS standings.

Such a team also qualifies if it is ranked No. 16 or better and is higher than the champion of one of the BCS leagues. As it currently stands, No. 16 North Carolina is the highest-rated ACC team. No. 21 Pittsburgh is the highest-rated Big East team.

The Tar Heels and Panthers have done more to deserve a BCS berth than Ball State, Boise State or Utah.

The Utes have gotten a ton of mileage from their 25-23 upset of Michigan in the not-so-Big House in their Aug. 30 opener. That victory seemed pretty impressive until we all realized how bad the Wolverines really are in coach Rich Rodriguez's first season. Toledo, which is 2-7 and already in the market for a new coach, beat the Wolverines 13-10 in Ann Arbor, Mich., nearly a month ago.

Utah's signature win came Thursday night, a 13-10 victory over No. 12 TCU. Quarterback Brian Johnson drove the Utes 80 yards in the final minutes, throwing the winning 9-yard touchdown to Freddie Brown with 48 seconds to play. Utah won after the Horned Frogs missed two field goals in the fourth quarter.

"We needed this to solidify our [BCS] ranking," Utah coach Kyle Whittingham said after beating TCU. "It feels great we don't need any help from anybody. We can talk about the conference now, we still have some games and things are far from over, but what more can you say about what's transpired to this point in time?"

Utah is the only team from a non-BCS league with an argument to claim a BCS berth. The Utes won at Air Force 30-23 and beat Oregon State, which upset then-No. 1 Southern California 27-21 on Sept. 25. Utah plays at hapless San Diego State on Saturday and closes the regular season at home against No. 17 BYU on Nov. 22.

Victories over Oregon State, TCU and BYU would be enough to justify the Utes getting a chance to hand Oklahoma another postseason loss.

Of course, the Utes were the first team from a non-BCS league to break the BCS ceiling in 2004. Under then-coach Urban Meyer, the Utes capped a perfect 12-0 season by walloping Pittsburgh 35-7 in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl. Meyer left for Florida a few days later, and quarterback Alex Smith was the No. 1 pick of the NFL draft the next spring. The Utes have been trying to get back to that level ever since.

Boise State became the poster child for teams from non-BCS leagues when it upset Oklahoma 43-42 in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, finishing the 2006 season with a perfect 13-0 record. The Broncos might be capable of beating another BCS-conference school in the Fiesta Bowl again. But Boise State hasn't done enough this season to deserve another chance to do it.

Only three of the eight FBS teams the Broncos have beaten this season currently have a winning record. In fact, their eight FBS opponents have a combined record of 37-41.

Boise State's best victory was a 37-32 upset of then-No. 17 Oregon on Sept. 20. The Ducks played that game without their two best quarterbacks, and then lost their third-stringer to a concussion before halftime. Oregon finished the game with two freshman rotating under center.

Boise State blasted Utah State 49-14 on Saturday. The Broncos play at 2-8 Idaho on Saturday and close the regular season at Nevada and home against Fresno State. The Wolf Pack and Bulldogs each have 5-4 records.

Ball State's résumé is even less impressive. Five of the eight FBS opponents the Cardinals have beaten have won three games or fewer. Ball State's most impressive victory to date was a 35-23 victory over Navy. Beating a team that's finally capable of beating Notre Dame doesn't carry as much weight as it used to.

After playing at Miami (Ohio) on Tuesday night (ESPN2, 7 p.m. ET), the Cardinals still face two big tests: at two-time defending MAC champion Central Michigan on Nov. 19 and home against Western Michigan on Nov. 25.

If the Cardinals win their last three games and finish 12-0, they would certainly be deserving of a date in the Motor City Bowl. But winning the MAC and beating Navy and Indiana doesn't entitle a team to a trip to the Orange Bowl.

The BCS tweaked its rules before the 2006 season to ensure that teams from non-BCS conferences would have an opportunity to play in the sport's biggest postseason games.

But equality and common sense still have to outweigh inclusion.

A few weeks ago, when Tulsa looked like the best team from a non-BCS league, Golden Hurricane coach Todd Graham said he was confident his team would qualify for a BCS bowl game if it finished unbeaten.

"All the ranking stuff will take care of itself," Graham said at the time. "I'm not worried one iota, if we go 13-0, about being left out. I think it's silly to even speculate."

The Golden Hurricane promptly lost to Arkansas, one of the worst teams in the SEC.

The Razorbacks, sitting at the bottom of the SEC West, are probably good enough to beat Ball State, Boise State and Utah, too.

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
It means more than people who just say so.

Florida vs. Vanderbilt. Mississippi beat Florida, Vanderbilt beat Mississippi. Until the two teams (Florida and Vanderbilt) actually played, would you have argued that Vanderbilt was better?


Nice insult. It's no wonder you and evilgeek have the same positions.

Thanks, I cooked that up just for you.

You'll get no argument from me. If it only came down to talent, then USC should be "champions" every year. Yet for some reason Pete cannot seem to get them to play as a team every single game.

As much as I laud my Trojans, I know there is, to a certain extent, some kind of parity in the NCAA. But I will tell you this. If there were an 8 team playoff (or something similar), a top tier program would win...every year. USC, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Texas. Every year. Talent doesn't mean everything, but it is the biggest indicator of success. And when you have a playoff, where teams have to prove their worth against quality opponents, multiple times, you're going to end up with a big name school winning it, whether they lost to one team earlier in the year who beat another team.


Not "what"; "who".

You see, you've taken a position with no legitimacy and tried to buttress it with tough talk when I called you out on its worthlessness. Put simply, there's no legitimacy with the transitive property in sports, and no amount of personal attacks against me is going to make you right (as much as you think it obfuscates the issue).

No, it's the only factual piece of evidence there is, and it favors Utah.

And it was a full moon that night when Oregon State played Utah. There was not a full moon when Oregon State played USC. Perhaps this piece of factual evidence is more telling of the two results?


No, I just don't like people who cast personal insults, such as "fool" and "missing reading lessons".

Did you honestly read the posts above yours where SLC took something evilgeek and I said and then proved that we were right, then thought that it somehow proved his point?

Those types of individuals are often referred to as "bullies" by society.

And we call individuals like you utterly defensive when it's not really a big deal at all.


It's those who behave like this that are responsible for the downturn of this discussion. MacDawg and I have had strong disagreements as well, but we have remained civilized in our discourse. That's all I'm after - civilized discourse.

And somehow MacDawg and I have gotten on perfectly well. He calls me out when I start loving USC too much, I try to temper his opinions about the superiority of the SEC a little bit. I have nothing but respect for his views and enjoy debating with him, but it's only when you latch on to some ridiculous argument that the thread suddenly becomes uncivilized.

You and evilgeek seem to think you're the Kings here who can tell everyone else what to do and what the rules of the discussion are. You can't. Get over it. If you want me to calm down, then keep the tenor of your comments civilized.

Stop being defensive. Whoops, there I go again!




You know Badandy, when you throw out weak and ambiguous insults during a discussion, it goes a long way to show how lacking your maturity is.

At least I don't attempt to use completely bogus metrics under the goals of proving my team's superiority and then get mad when someone calls me out on thinking without logic.

One thing I did learn during my "lessons" as a child was that throwing a temper tantrum when people don't agree with me doesn't help one bit.

You think I'm throwing a temper tantrum?

Get over yourself Badandy, you're making yourself look foolish.
SLC

I'd rather make myself look foolish than sink to the incredible lows you have with regards to other sporting figures like Derek Fisher. While you may not like my trash talk or pride of my team, you're the one who accuses a loving father (Derek Fisher) of deserving the boos he received when he changed teams so that he could be closer to the right medical care for his sick daughter. My trash talk may make you annoyed, but your bias and complete lack of class (as long as it supports your team) make me sick.
 
My trash talk may make you annoyed, but your bias and complete lack of class (as long as it supports your team) make me sick.


:D I'm loving this!! And after trashing USC and arguing with Badandy all year, I suddenly find myself on his side.
 
Heh - this board on the whole is very tame compared to most sports message boards. So it's kind of fun to see some real smack.

But that's what's cool about college sports message boards - I can think Badandy is a douche when it comes to USC (and I'm sure he thinks the same of me), but I wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer if we ever ended up in the same bar together.
 
Heh - this board on the whole is very tame compared to most sports message boards. So it's kind of fun to see some real smack.

But that's what's cool about college sports message boards - I can think Badandy is a douche when it comes to USC (and I'm sure he thinks the same of me), but I wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer if we ever ended up in the same bar together.

I definitely would, and I only consider you a douche in regards to UT football, not in any other part of our conversation s;)

But, I do have solace in knowing you're a UT fan in Southern California :cool:

I would die if I were in Texas as a USC fan, so kudos to going against the grain.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.