Mitch Albom's latest column on the BCS

[PTjvs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Florida 'did it on the field' as they always say and survived the longest, most grueling playoff race in sports.
LSU, Michigan, etc may be better, but Florida showed it on the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry my friend, but this is the flaw in your argument. You are stating that a team doesn't have to be better than another to be ranked ahead of them. They just have to appear to have accomplished more and as a result deserve it more.

To solve this, a simple hypothetical question should be asked when ranking opponents:

If the two teams played a game at full strength on a neutral field, who would be most likely to win?

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually completely disagree with this, which is a shame since I usually hate every single one of MT2R's posts. The rankings are really honestly NOT about who is the best team, they are totally about who has had the best season.

Does anyone think that BSU is actually one of the 10 best teams in the country? Of course not, but being undefeated, even versus a weak schedule, puts them near the top of the rankings.

In 2002 when OSU beat Miami in the national championship game, even after that game, was there ANY doubt in your mind that Miami was the superior team, and would win against OSU more than half the time. Why not award Miami the #1 ranking and National Championship, even after it lost the title game then? They were obviously the better team.

College football rankings, at the end of the year (before then is somewhat predictitive) reward who has had the better year, NOT who is the best team. Period.

jvs

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
To solve this, a simple hypothetical question should be asked when ranking opponents:

If the two teams played a game at full strength on a neutral field, who would be most likely to win?


[/ QUOTE ]

the answer to this question is LSU ahead of everyone but Ohio State

the answer shows that you are asking the wrong question

[Jack of Arcades]

I think the true question is:

Even if you were sure a team had the second best season, is there any circumstance in which you wouldn't vote for them as #2?

They didn't win their conference, they "already had their shot," etc...

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wtf did Urban do that was considered so bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people seem to be upset with him saying about Michigan that, "They had their shot". A minor faux pas, really, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Urban bitch about a playoff system while at Utah, but then when asked to speak at a hearing this year, and his Fla team now having a shot at the NC, he's clammed up?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't hear about that one, but it wouldn't surprise me. I don't like him.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wtf did Urban do that was considered so bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people seem to be upset with him saying about Michigan that, "They had their shot". A minor faux pas, really, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Urban bitch about a playoff system while at Utah, but then when asked to speak at a hearing this year, and his Fla team now having a shot at the NC, he's clammed up?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't hear about that one, but it wouldn't surprise me. I don't like him.

[/ QUOTE ]

They just had a thing about that last week in the paper. He said maybe he should've went and said something instead of going on a recruiting trip.

b

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
just a refresher on the national champs in college since the BCS...wow...that's a great list

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's because:

1) The #1 team always plays in the game, and
2) The #1 team often doesn't even have to play the #2 team.

So of course the #1 team will usually win.

But the problem is that the system is NOT designed to make sure the #1 team wins the championship. The system is designed so that the #1 team plays the #2 team. And in that regard, the system usually FAILS.

[heater]

Excellent point.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just a refresher on the national champs in college since the BCS...wow...that's a great list

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's because:

1) The #1 team always plays in the game, and
2) The #1 team often doesn't even have to play the #2 team.

So of course the #1 team will usually win.

But the problem is that the system is NOT designed to make sure the #1 team wins the championship. The system is designed so that the #1 team plays the #2 team. And in that regard, the system usually FAILS.

[/ QUOTE ]


While there have been many decent cases for other #2 teams, I don't recall any undeserving #2 teams. I think the system has actually nailed #2 every time, but humans (with their baggage of cognitive biases) are not wise enough to see it every time. The biggest complaints are about teams that lost the conference title game. Here, humans overweight the result of the last week compared to a whole resume.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To solve this, a simple hypothetical question should be asked when ranking opponents:

If the two teams played a game at full strength on a neutral field, who would be most likely to win?


[/ QUOTE ]

the answer to this question is LSU ahead of everyone but Ohio State

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. USC and Michigan would both be favored over LSU.

The argument that Michigan "had their shot" is completely insane, and I don't respect anyone who uses that logic. Florida "had their shot" at beating Auburn and staying undefeated, but they blew it. If you think Florida is better or more deserving or whatever, then fine, but don't penalize Michigan JUST because they happen to be in the same conference as Ohio State.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
No it isn't. USC and Michigan would both be favored over LSU.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

did I use the Michigan 'had their shot' argument?
I think I argued Florida is more deserving because of what they've done of the field.