|
|
#11
11-11-2006, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It depends. Right now, I'd take Texas, Cal, and probably Florida over Rutgers. Last week, I would've taken Louisville. [/ QUOTE ] Will I ever be able to get you to realize Texas is overrated? Yes, they're good, but not the best 1 loss team ... [/ QUOTE ] QFT Not to mention can people drop the USC is overrated talk? The crushed one of the top SEC teams. I don't need to hear another PAC10<<<<<<<<<<<& lt;<<<<<<<<SEC 
|
|
#12
11-11-2006, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
If you go undefeated in a BCS conference and there is only one onther undefeated team, then the 2 undefeateds should play for the national title. Otherwise the system is just a popularity contest.
|
|
#13
11-11-2006, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
I would take the undefeated team every single time no matter what. If you're not going to, then you need to cut down on the number of D1 teams and put these teams with no chance at winning the title into DII.
|
|
#14
11-11-2006, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
In other words, if somehow both OSU and Michigan lost this year, then I'd make it Rutgers vs Boise St in the National Title game. If you're not going to honor the undefeateds then why even have them in Division 1?
|
|
#15
11-11-2006, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
I'm amazed considering their popularity and previous #2 ranking that Notre Dame still isn't getting any talk when people are talking about 1-loss contenders. If USC and Notre Dame win out and Notre Dame wins, along with Michigan defeating Ohio State, it seems like Notre Dame would have a case. Their only loss would be to the other team playing for the National Title, similar to the argument that Texas has now.
Michigan/Notre Dame and Ohio State/Texas would both be interesting stories, rematches where the favorite dealt the underdog it's only loss, on their home field. Of course, the issue with both Notre Dame and Texas, is they have played very few contenders, but I don't see why people view Notre Dame below Texas, and can't see how it would be justified if Notre Dame knocks out 1-loss USC at the end of the season. Also, if USC somehow beats Oregon, 1-loss Cal, and then 1-loss Notre Dame, it would be crazy if they weren't playing for the National Championship over 1-loss Texas or 1-loss Florida or whoever thinks they deserve it.
|
|
#16
11-11-2006, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if somehow both OSU and Michigan lost this year, then I'd make it Rutgers vs Boise St in the National Title game. If you're not going to honor the undefeateds then why even have them in Division 1? [/ QUOTE ] Just because hell freezes over and there's a huge upset you want to put two teams that aren't amongst the top ten teams in college football in the title game? Jopke. Hell, I'd prefer a Wisconsin/Arkansas title game. lol
|
|
#17
11-11-2006, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In other words, if somehow both OSU and Michigan lost this year, then I'd make it Rutgers vs Boise St in the National Title game. If you're not going to honor the undefeateds then why even have them in Division 1? [/ QUOTE ] Just because hell freezes over and there's a huge upset you want to put two teams that aren't amongst the top ten teams in college football in the title game? Jopke. Hell, I'd prefer a Wisconsin/Arkansas title game. lol [/ QUOTE ] They aren't among the top 10 only because they started the season so far back in the preseason polls...that is what is a jopke. If you're going to rank certain teams so low in the preseason that they have no shot at the National Title even if they go undefeated, then just put them in Division II because theres no point in having them in a division that they can't win no matter what.
|
|
#18
11-11-2006, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
They aren't among the top 10 only because they started the season so far back in the preseason polls...that is what is a jopke. [/ QUOTE ] i'm not saying you're totally wrong, but why does Sagarin (an unbiased computer ranking) have both West Virginia and Louisiville ranked ahead of Rutgers?
|
|
#19
11-11-2006, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
Probably because Sagarin takes strength of schedule into account- something that the teams CAN'T CONTROL AT ALL! I don't think SOS should even be considered because they're all playing DI teams. Thats my entire point. If we're really going to view some wins as 'non-quality' becuase the opponents were bad, then those opponents shouldn't even be in DI.
|
|
#20
11-11-2006, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
Probably because Sagarin takes strength of schedule into account- something that the teams CAN'T CONTROL AT ALL! I don't think SOS should even be considered because they're all playing DI teams. Thats my entire point. If we're really going to view some wins as 'non-quality' becuase the opponents were bad, then those opponents shouldn't even be in DI. [/ QUOTE ] Louisville's SoS (#24) is higher (because they've played both of their big games), but W.Viriginia and Rutgers are very similar so far (#55 vs #69). So again, why does a computer rank Rutgers over W.Virginia?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
