FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Hey, go to bed......What am I doing up? Why am I reading this? Startin to creep myself out, honestly.

LSU has the toughest grind ever for a national contender. Did the math, and if LSU was to go all the way, they would have played 8 ranked opponents out of 14 total games this year (Bruce Almighty!!!) .

It's not fair. All while the Ohio State's and Boston College's prance around their fairy schedules to go undefeated. My point is primarily this: If you're one loss to the next top opponent in your conference away from being about 13th in the nation, you're truly not the top (or second top) team.

Heh heh, yeah, I didn't take rankings into account, but LSU was #2 toughest schedule to play considering how rested most teams were before playing them.

Explain your meaning from your main point; I'm not following.

It's basically saying that their conferences are garbage. Take Ohio State, for instance. They play someone in the Big Ten each week (that's after playing the Akrons and such) during the season. Their next biggest opponent would be #19 Michigan. If they lose that game, they're in jeopardy of falling to about 9th or 12th depending on if Michigan loses again before then. How have you EARNED the top sopt in the country if one of your opponents could potentially knock you back back about 10 spots; it's ilogical.

When LSU lost to UK, they didn't fall out of the top 5 in most polls. Everyone at least knew that they had barely fallen to a high-quality opponent after three huge games in a row (they're still the best team in the country). Look at So.Fla. Wait for BC. The writers get so caught up in ranking undefeateds that they neglect the real best best teams. They say defend the curretn BCS format by saying, "In college football, every week is a playoff," but they don't follow through on that.

Ah ok, so a real good team should stay in the top 10 if they lose to a quality opponent; that's why most teams fall so far when they lose b/c their conference isn't good enough to sustain a one loss top-10'er. I think a team's name helps too when deciding rankings b/c LSU, Florida, and Oklahoma have a much easier time being a one (or even 2 loss!) loss top 10 than USF, BC, or Kansas.

"How have you EARNED the top spot in the country if one of your opponents could potentially knock you back about 10 spots?.."

It should read: "How have you EARNED the top spot in the country if YOUR BEST opponent could potentially knock you back about 10 spots?.."

Don't get me started with Oklahoma (geez). They beat FSU in the national championship in 2001 and the BCS has been spoiling them ever since. Yeah, the names carry the weight; sometimes too much, and sometimes too little. I don't see how an undefeated Michigan or Notre Dame (haha) team would ever get snubbed.

Most sports writers are kind of like movie critics. They can neither act nor direct. There are of course acceptions. To those, I offer my esteem and respect. The majority of sport writers, my distaste.

The point being. If those voting for the various sport polls, had their 401K, house, car, and all their earnings for the next five years on the line. No hedging of the bet. (they have to bet) The prize would go to those that finished in the top twenty five percent., which would be the assets of the bottom twenty five percent. The middle fifty percent would lose everything, with the spoils going to children's sports. The bottom twenty five percent, would have their earnings taken away for an additional five years. Would they then still place and pick the top ten teams in the same position as they did. For the top fifteen teams would play a fourteen game schedule. By pulling the top fifteen teams under the current BCF poll, into their own BCF conference. The sport's writers top ten picks would be included in the this mix of fifteen.

Now pick your top ten teams this coming Sunday, free of conference bias, geographical bias, and just junk picks. The new BCF conference season starts in three weeks, with only the game schedule this Saturday under the present schedule to remain. Those lucky top fifteen football teams, will play fourteen more games, with a one week break after the fifth, tenth games.

The only bowl games, would be those teams tied with the best record / winning percentage at the end of the fourteen game schedule. Playing either sudden death or round robin, depending on if the tie is even or odd number of teams.

So what would your pick be under that situation. Would you pick an undefeated 7 - 0 team that has not played a top fifteen team to date, over a 6-1, 5-2 or even a 4-3 team. That 4-3 team, that may have played two, three or even more, top fifteen teams, but lost. Maybe lost by seven points are less. Now remember, it's more than just a mindless vote. You've got money involved on your picks. So what is your pick.

Just who is #1. How about #6, #9, #12????

Yeah, you're really not on to something, pal. There are no football teams in any league that play 30+ games a season; that's crazy.

The only rankings that matter are the #s 1and 2. The second ranked team is just there to see if they can beat the top ranked team. If you can't tell who the best team in the country is by season's end, then you're blind. If somehow the BCS gets it wrong, they just share national champions; not that huge of a deal considering most people refer to the team that won the Championship game as the real champion. The majority of the time they get it right.

I don't agree with the standings either, but that doesn't mean college football is a mess. LSU is the best team in the country because they have the most talented team and coaching this year, and they won all but one game. If all the top 3 ranked teams went undefeated throughout, LSU and Ohio State would get the nod for the Sugar Bowl Champ. Game.

Deep South Sider, I agree nobody plays a 30 game schedule. The point was, that way too many pollsters do not take into account the strength of schedule, when placing teams in the rankings. That if they (the pollsters) really had something to lose on their picks, which do have an effect on where the bowl bound teams end up. Thus denying some better teams from a top five / ten and in some worst cases,a top two or three ranking. For if a true top two team is left off the #2 end of the year ranking. They cannot play for the national championship. But my problem is not with a team(s) that is misplaced by one or two positions. But by teams that are misplaced by five / ten or more postional rankings. Just because they have one or two losses, but only played maybe one or two tough games all year. When other two or three loss teams, play half or more of their schedule against top quality teams.

I say that all top twenty teams, should fall within a few positions of what the strength of that particular football team actually is.

The BCF computer ranking, which is averaged with the other polls, should add more points to those teams that play a more difficult schedule. Cream puff schedules, whether by luck or design, should not be rewarded.

Large conferences should be penalized for not having a championship game, when compiling the final BCF ranks.

But I do wonder what the final rank would be, if those now top fifteen ranked teams. Took a few weeks off, and then started their new fourteen game schedule. Would Boston College now ranked #2, be ranked in the top eight out of these top fifteen ranked teams, after playing those fourteen games? Just how much money and assets would a pollester place on the picks that they made last week?

Deep South Sider, I hope you realize, that I'm just blowing steam. I do believe the heart of what I wrote to be true. But in the scheme of things. My life does not revolve around wins / losses, or ranks.

Thanks for replying. Enjoy!!