People often complain about various BCS rules that allow less-deserving teams in over more-deserving ones, so on the assumption that in a pure "merit" system, the 10 BCS bowl slots would be filled by the BCS top 10 teams, we would have something like:

BCS Title Game: FSU vs Auburn
Rose Bowl: Michigan State vs Stanford
Orange Bowl: Ohio State vs South Carolina
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs Oregon
Fiesta Bowl: Baylor vs Missouri

How do they compare (from an entertainment standpoint) to the actual games? Obviously the title game and Rose bowl are the same so no difference there. The Fiesta seems a lot more compelling, with Missouri subbing for UCF, that would be a real track meet. But while Alabama vs Oregon is a good one, the matchup with Oklahoma is more intriguing as a Sugar bowl game. And while OSU vs SC is better on the merits, and Urban vs Spurrier is something I wouldn't want to miss, there are already lots of B1G-SEC bowl games so OSU vs Clemson might be more interesting as well so call that a wash.

Judging merit is too subjective in the current system, IMO. It's easy to say that Missouri deserves to be in the Fiesta bowl more than UCF, but since they didn't play each other, any judgment will have to be subjective. The only common opponent was S Carolina, which beat both teams on the road. Also, both finished with 2 losses. Do I think Missouri is better? Probably, but that's just an educated guess. If UCF beats Baylor, I may change my mind.

UCF finished with 1 loss and I think they have more merit than a couple teams on there. As long as the polls drive the BCS rankings there is no point in trying to make it merit based.

(12-12-2013 10:37 AM)uccheese Wrote:  UCF finished with 1 loss and I think they have more merit than a couple teams on there.

Which ones?

There is nothing merit about the BCS, the BCS Bowls, and BCS polls. So what if a conference back up team ends up in the Orange Bowl. So what if UCF is in over Mizzou or South Carolina. This is like bitching about a 7-9 division winner getting into the NFL playoffs over an 10-6 wildcard team or an 11-1 Alabama bitching about a 9-3 Florida getting into the SEC Championship game. It is what it is. It's the way the system is set up. If Mizzou and/or South Carolina doesn't like it, join a different league.

(12-12-2013 10:41 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:37 AM)uccheese Wrote:  UCF finished with 1 loss and I think they have more merit than a couple teams on there.

Which ones?

Oregon and Stanford. I would put them around equal with Missouri and the B10 teams.

(12-12-2013 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  People often complain about various BCS rules that allow less-deserving teams in over more-deserving ones, so on the assumption that in a pure "merit" system, the 10 BCS bowl slots would be filled by the BCS top 10 teams, we would have something like:

BCS Title Game: FSU vs Auburn
Rose Bowl: Michigan State vs Stanford
Orange Bowl: Ohio State vs South Carolina
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs Oregon
Fiesta Bowl: Baylor vs Missouri

How do they compare (from an entertainment standpoint) to the actual games? Obviously the title game and Rose bowl are the same so no difference there. The Fiesta seems a lot more compelling, with Missouri subbing for UCF, that would be a real track meet. But while Alabama vs Oregon is a good one, the matchup with Oklahoma is more intriguing as a Sugar bowl game. And while OSU vs SC is better on the merits, and Urban vs Spurrier is something I wouldn't want to miss, there are already lots of B1G-SEC bowl games so OSU vs Clemson might be more interesting as well so call that a wash.

Do you ever stop trolling UCF? Your getting as bad as Tallgrass and his AAC obsession. Just say congratulation and move along because who is to say Ohio State or Michigan State is any better than UCF? Who have either one of them beaten or played to prove they are top ten teams?

UCF can at least say they beat a pretty good Big 10 team, beat an 11-1 Louisville, and went down to the last seconds with South Carolina.

(12-12-2013 10:41 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:37 AM)uccheese Wrote:  UCF finished with 1 loss and I think they have more merit than a couple teams on there.

Which ones?

At least Fresno or NIU don't have to worry about getting blown out by Baylor. UCF gets that worry.

(12-12-2013 11:57 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:41 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:37 AM)uccheese Wrote:  UCF finished with 1 loss and I think they have more merit than a couple teams on there.

Which ones?

Oregon and Stanford. I would put them around equal with Missouri and the B10 teams.

Oregon and Stanford won 10 games against two of the toughest schedules in the country while UCF played by far the softest schedule of the top 20 ranked teams, and you think UCF had more merit than them?

Didn't Stanford lose to Utah?

Utah finished 5-7 yet no one seems to remember Stanford lost to a team with a losing record. I wonder why the amnesia?

What about Stanford's wins though? Arizona State (twice), Oregon & UCLA who are all in the top 20 of the BCS rankings. That's 4 times as many wins over ranked teams as UCF has.

(12-12-2013 02:08 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  What about Stanford's wins though? Arizona State (twice), Oregon & UCLA who are all in the top 20 of the BCS rankings. That's 4 times as many wins over ranked teams as UCF has.

Those are good wins. I would point out that ASU should have lost to Wisky, not that it really matters. They are good wins. I am not comparing Stanford to UCF, just pointing out that if you are going to talk about so-called merit, you can't forget the losses, or the flukes.

Utah is 5-7, USC is 9-4, really 8-4 but they got the extra game with hapless Hawaii. Everyone, including the voters, seems to have forgotten about Stanford losing to Utah. Conversely, no one seemed to forget about Oklahoma State losing to West Va.

(12-12-2013 02:34 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:08 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  What about Stanford's wins though? Arizona State (twice), Oregon & UCLA who are all in the top 20 of the BCS rankings. That's 4 times as many wins over ranked teams as UCF has.

Those are good wins. I would point out that ASU should have lost to Wisky, not that it really matters. They are good wins. I am not comparing Stanford to UCF, just pointing out that if you are going to talk about so-called merit, you can't forget the losses, or the flukes.

What makes you think I forgot them? Stanford and Oregon played far tougher schedules than did UCF, and of course that encompasses ALL games. Taking into account the ENTIRE body of work, they were clearly more deserving than UCF.

Quo, did you bring this up last year when unranked Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl? Will you bring it up in the future if USF ever gets the G5 spot and goes to a major bowl? I think we all know the answer to both of those questions is "no".

Why are you so obsessed with putting down UCF? You are such a miserable loser.

(12-12-2013 02:45 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Quo, did you bring this up last year when unranked Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl? Will you bring it up in the future if USF ever gets the G5 spot and goes to a major bowl? I think we all know the answer to both of those questions is "no".

Why are you so obsessed with putting down UCF? You are such a miserable loser.

What I don't understand is why it's okay to lose to 5-7 Utah and then be "deserving" or "merit" the Rose Bowl. Stanford had some good wins this year, but what have they shown that indicates they are a top 10 team? Losing to a 9-4 USC and 5-7 Utah does not indicate top 10 to me, and the wins over ASU are padded with a game stolen from Wisky.

If "winning" a big game each year was all that mattered, NC State would have played in better bowls the past 30 years. Winning a big game over a top 15 school is not NC State's problem these past 30 years, we have plenty of those wins over FSU, Clemson, Texas, and losses by one score to Ohio State, our problem is being focused the next week and not losing to WF or some other chump we should have beaten. Not losing has to matter as much as winning a few big games. To me, being "deserving" or "meriting" a BCS bowl should mean that you do not lose to teams that are your inferior and that you can beat or at least play even the top teams on your schedule. But that's me.

If we look back over the year, there are several large chokes -

SC choking to Tennessee
Stanford choking to Utah
Ok. State choking to West Va.
Miami choking to VT
LSU choking to Ole Miss
Duke choking to Pittsburg

However, the media and the pollsters don't treat all chokes alike.

If we look back over the year, the are several big games in and around the top 10 where the losing team, lost to a good team, pure and simple -

Ohio State lost to Michigan State
Clemson lost to South Carolina
Georgia lost to Clemson
Oregon lost to Stanford
Alabama lost to Auburn

All of these were fairly equal matches, either team could have won.

I think it's a fair question to ask, how much do we discount or penalize a team for choking? Stanford seems to have gotten no penalty at all.

(12-12-2013 02:45 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Quo, did you bring this up last year when unranked Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl?

I sure did. It has always irked me when a team ranked low gets in to a BCS bowl game ahead of more deserving teams just because they are a conference champion. I have dumped on the B1G and ACC about that many times.

Of course I enjoy doing it about UCF more, but hey, I'm a USF fan.

(12-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:45 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Quo, did you bring this up last year when unranked Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl? Will you bring it up in the future if USF ever gets the G5 spot and goes to a major bowl? I think we all know the answer to both of those questions is "no".

Why are you so obsessed with putting down UCF? You are such a miserable loser.

What I don't understand is why it's okay to lose to 5-7 Utah and then be "deserving" or "merit" the Rose Bowl. Stanford had some good wins this year, but what have they shown that indicates they are a top 10 team? Losing to a 9-4 USC and 5-7 Utah does not indicate top 10 to me, and the wins over ASU are padded with a game stolen from Wisky.

Your problem is that while you insist that we look at the whole body of work, losses including wins, you then proceed to overrate the losses severely and underrate factors like schedule strength. Heck, it's easy to avoid losses if you play mostly awful teams, like UCF did.

Consider that Massey compiles rankings from over 100 computers, not poll voters who may be biased in favor of a "big name" or somesuch, but impartial computers that take into account many factors without caring what brand-name a team is, and right now they have Stanford at #3. UCF is at #23.

(12-12-2013 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:45 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Quo, did you bring this up last year when unranked Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl? Will you bring it up in the future if USF ever gets the G5 spot and goes to a major bowl? I think we all know the answer to both of those questions is "no".

Why are you so obsessed with putting down UCF? You are such a miserable loser.

What I don't understand is why it's okay to lose to 5-7 Utah and then be "deserving" or "merit" the Rose Bowl. Stanford had some good wins this year, but what have they shown that indicates they are a top 10 team? Losing to a 9-4 USC and 5-7 Utah does not indicate top 10 to me, and the wins over ASU are padded with a game stolen from Wisky.

Your problem is that while you insist that we look at the whole body of work, losses including wins, you then proceed to overrate the losses severely and underrate factors like schedule strength. Heck, it's easy to avoid losses if you play mostly awful teams, like UCF did.

Consider that Massey compiles rankings from over 100 computers, not poll voters who may be biased in favor of a "big name" or somesuch, but impartial computers that take into account many factors without caring what brand-name a team is, and right now they have Stanford at #3. UCF is at #23.

It's one thing to avoid losses by playing awful teams, but it's another to lose to awful teams.

South Carolina beat a #6 team and a #5 team but lost to a losing Tennessee team (Not saying they don't deserve the game..just saying teams drop a bad one).

Stanford lost to a garbage Utah team and had some wins over some over ranked teams.

UCF beats an 11-1 team, and loses by 3 to S. Car, but is unworthy of a good bowl game?

Who cares if they have a crap SOS, the PAC is extremely over rated. They lost to an extremely good team and beat some other decent teams. Almost every team you listed has dropped 1 to a very good team and a couple have dropped 1 to a garbage team.

(12-12-2013 04:27 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:45 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Quo, did you bring this up last year when unranked Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl? Will you bring it up in the future if USF ever gets the G5 spot and goes to a major bowl? I think we all know the answer to both of those questions is "no".

Why are you so obsessed with putting down UCF? You are such a miserable loser.

What I don't understand is why it's okay to lose to 5-7 Utah and then be "deserving" or "merit" the Rose Bowl. Stanford had some good wins this year, but what have they shown that indicates they are a top 10 team? Losing to a 9-4 USC and 5-7 Utah does not indicate top 10 to me, and the wins over ASU are padded with a game stolen from Wisky.

Your problem is that while you insist that we look at the whole body of work, losses including wins, you then proceed to overrate the losses severely and underrate factors like schedule strength. Heck, it's easy to avoid losses if you play mostly awful teams, like UCF did.

Consider that Massey compiles rankings from over 100 computers, not poll voters who may be biased in favor of a "big name" or somesuch, but impartial computers that take into account many factors without caring what brand-name a team is, and right now they have Stanford at #3. UCF is at #23.

It's one thing to avoid losses by playing awful teams, but it's another to lose to awful teams.

South Carolina beat a #6 team and a #5 team but lost to a losing Tennessee team (Not saying they don't deserve the game..just saying teams drop a bad one).

Stanford lost to a garbage Utah team and had some wins over some over ranked teams.

UCF beats an 11-1 team, and loses by 3 to S. Car, but is unworthy of a good bowl game?

You are the worst troll on this board. Who cares if they have a crap SOS, the PAC is extremely over rated. They lost to an extremely good team and beat some other decent teams. Almost every team you listed has dropped 1 to a very good team and a couple have dropped 1 to a garbage team.

UCF barely squeaked by some really bad teams, like Memphis, USF, Temple, and SMU. They clearly were far less deserving than South Carolina, which is why they were well behind them in the BCS standings. Maybe the fact that South Carolina beat them factors in to that? UCF played two good teams all year, UL and SC. They rallied from 20 down to barely beat UL, and they lost at home to SC. Hardly impressive, eh? The great bulk of the rest of their schedule was pure crap so who cares if they won them?

And you lose all credibility when you call the PAC extremely overrated, when all the computers say they were either the best conference or second best conference this year. Maybe those computers that have Stanford at #3 and UCF at #23 know something about SOS that you don't?