Betting Talk

bcs show on espn...

newcombenewcombe Senior Member
edited December 2010 in Sports Betting
love how big of a prick chris folwer is to dumb ass Craig James. not that I am a big fan of fowler but that is awful funny to see people clown james. I was curious on BT's thoughts as to if auburn was to lose a close one this weekend then should they still play for BCS champ game or let TCU? i really think auburn should still get the nod but at the same time I don't see auburn losing this week or even close.
«1

Comments

  • topplayertopplayer Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    Newcombe

    Please understand I am serious. If Auburn loses, it is hard for me to accept them being the best since they lost. I feel TCU could be the best we dont know. Sure they play in a weaker conf. but until they lose no one can say they are not the best. I do think as of now Aub-Ore are the best. No one has proved otherwise,but a loss would give TCU that arguement.
  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    technically just b/c they are undefeated i guess but their big wins are meaningless now (ie. Oregon State / Baylor). close wins vs SMU / San Diego St are not good. they certainly aren't the "best" team based puretly on that b/c plain and simple there are too many teams out there that would go undefeated with the same schedule.
  • topplayertopplayer Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    I agree with that, but each team must play the schedule dealt to them. Who knows which one loss team is the best. I do not think we will have to worry, because Oregon and Auburn are not going to lose.
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited November 2010
    There are two ways to look at it, historical public reactions and the right way. Historically, no, they shouldn't. #2 UM lost by 3 AT #1 Ohio St the last week of the season and the media/voters decided they didn't deserve a rematch on a neutral site. I don't see how an Auburn loss to a 3 loss team on a neutral site will be looked at better than the Michigan loss, especially with an undefeated team out there.

    The right way? If you think they are the next best team outside of Oregon, you need to vote them #2.
  • buck4493buck4493 Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    TCU should not be in title game period!

    They arent worthy of it being in the Mountain West shit conference. If Auburn loses a close game they should still be in game, or stanford.

    Im tired of these shitty little conference teams thinking theyre up with the big boys.
  • hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    Disagree although I also believe TCU isn't as good as these teams. If you go undefeated you deserve a shot. On the flip side it isn't fair that SEC teams have a large margin for error. Arkansas loses 2 games yet they leap frog over a big ten program (MSU). MSU gets scerwed and bounved out of the BCS series.
    College football sucks as a whole. Without a play-off there will never be a true champion.
  • raiderlandraiderland Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    i hear people say all the time tcu play who on there SCHEDULE well guess what they will not put any top SEC ARE BID 10 TEAMS ON THERE SCHEDULE ARE THEY WOULDNT BE 11-0
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited November 2010
    Michigan St couldn't go to a BCS game anyway because Wisconsin and Ohio St will already be there. You can't have more than 2 teams from a conference.

    They don't deserve to be there anyway. They played two tough games all year, one on the road and they got destroyed in that one. 4th best team in the Big 10.
  • hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    StevieY you can't have it both ways. And that is my point. If MSU has only played 2 tough games all year and they are from a power conference......... then why punish all the smaller league teams with the "who have they played mantra"?
    Wisconsin and Ohio State played that much tougher a schedule????????
    You can paint the picture any way you like but in the end the BCS sucks.
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited November 2010
    I never said the smaller leagues should be punished. From personal experience I'd be a hypocrite for saying that. My point is if people are crying about TCU and Boise St's schedule, then you have to really look at the major conference schedules and not give them a pass just because they are in a big conference. If people are going to rip on TCU, then you have to look at Oregon having two tough games(both at home), MSU having two tough games, only leaving the state of Michigan for 1 serious game and they were destroyed by a 4 loss team. Auburn had one tough road game.

    I maintain that if you took Oregon's team and put them in Boise and let them play in the WAC, people who currently rip on Boise and TCU would rip on them. It doesn't change them as a team but they would be ripped on for being frauds. The eye test says otherwise.

    You are right, the BCS is a joke. Why anyone takes the BCS title game so seriously, I don't know. The top 10 teams played 7 tough road games and went 3-4 in those games. They are in the top 10 because they had managable schedules. 4 of those road games were played by Ohio St and Wisconsin unless you want to throw Iowa out of the mix as being a tough road game. If so, the top 10 teams then played 5 tough road games and went 1-4. Not exactly elite standards.
  • oduxodux Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    raiderland wrote: »
    i hear people say all the time tcu play who on there SCHEDULE well guess what they will not put any top SEC ARE BID 10 TEAMS ON THERE SCHEDULE ARE THEY WOULDNT BE 11-0
    If when you say "they" you mean the SEC and Big-10 will not schedule the likes of TCU/Boise/Utah, then you are correct. However, if you think the TCU/Boise/Utah will not schedule SEC/Pac-10/Big-10/Big-12 teams you are delusional and need a reality check. Those conferences will not sign home/home contracts, they only want you to come play at their field but not go to yours and play you. You may get away with that attitude with the Toledos, yougstown st, La Monroe, Furman of the world but TCU/Boise/Utah do not have to except that bullshit. They say it every day " you want to play, lets play".

    If the top SEC or Big-10 schools went and played other top of conference teams they would not be 11-0 either... so whats your point.
  • hornhorn Super Moderator
    edited November 2010
    Why wouldn't the little guys try to schedule games against the power conference teams? They won't play in a title game no matter what under the current system so it can't really hurt them. On the other hand, why would a power conference team schedule them? Most AQ teams have enough on their plate as is and the only people complaining about the non AQ's not getting their shot are fans of those teams and talking heads. AQ's have nothing to gain compared to having everything to lose by playing those games. A lot of AQ's need a break during the year so they schedule the same teams that the non AQ's get to play week in and week out. If I was an AD from an AQC, I would schedule the biggest bunch of patsies you could imagine if I felt it would help my team's chances of success and ultimately revenue generation that goes along with it.
  • peacemakerpeacemaker Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    I'd love to see TCU take out Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl just to hear the resonse from the Ohio St. president...
  • buck4493buck4493 Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    i applaud TCU for going to the Big East. proved my point by doing so. If the big east is a better conference than the one they were in must have stunk
  • buck4493buck4493 Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    peacemaker wrote: »
    I'd love to see TCU take out Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl just to hear the resonse from the Ohio St. president...

    you realize the president wasnt just talking about the big ten conference right??
  • Mrtk31Mrtk31 Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    Sucks all the way to the bank!
  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    Buck, your OSU is repping Monday Night Foots pretty well tonight... quite a few buckeyes on the field.
  • StevieYStevieY Senior Handicapper
    edited November 2010
    newcombe wrote: »
    Buck, your OSU is repping Monday Night Foots pretty well tonight... quite a few buckeyes on the field.

    No wonder these two teams suck :)
  • peacemakerpeacemaker Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    buck4493 wrote: »
    you realize the president wasnt just talking about the big ten conference right??


    Yep. And I also realize that he failed to check the strength of schedule numbers before he opened his yap.
  • BettorThenMeBettorThenMe Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    BCS facts: the Ohio St. Universtity, Stanford, Oregon 0 wins against teams with 8 wins or more; Michigan St. and Wisconsin 1 win against teams with 8 wins or more; Tcu 2 wins against teams with 8 wins or more; Arkansas 4 wins against teams with 8 wins or more; Auburn with 5 wins against teams with 8 wins or more. So who is the best team? The best conference?
  • oduxodux Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    BCS facts: the Ohio St. Universtity, Stanford, Oregon 0 wins against teams with 8 wins or more; Michigan St. and Wisconsin 1 win against teams with 8 wins or more; Tcu 2 wins against teams with 8 wins or more; Arkansas 4 wins against teams with 8 wins or more; Auburn with 5 wins against teams with 8 wins or more. So who is the best team? The best conference?

    Nice "FACTS"?? Oregon pounded the #5 team in the country and I do believe they have more than 10 wins!! AND if you would let the season finish Oregon will probably have 3 wins over 8 win teams and Stanford will probably have 2.... Not that your little facts mean anything.

    Football is all about match-ups........ not A + B = C + (3 pad the record scrimmages) so therefore C is greater than A.
  • hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    Big Ten Facts:
    1) 3 way tie between OSU - W - MSU. MSU went 1-0, W went 1-0, and OSU 0-1 in games head to head
    2) Winning percentage of these 3 opponents: MSU Highest - W second - OSU 3rd
    3) Opponent's opponents winning percentage: MSU Highest - OSU 2nd - W 3rd
    4) Wins against ranked teams: MSU and W 1, OSU 0
    Michigan State beats W by 10 pts

    How is it justified that the team within the same league who played the toughest schedule of the 3 teams tied, and whose opponent's opponents had the highest winning percentage, and who beat the only team they played invovled in the tie by double digits, and who had as many wins versus ranked teams as one of the teams, and more wins than the other, IS SOMEHOW RANKED LOWER BY THE BCS? College football sucks.
  • Chisox6Chisox6 Senior Member
    edited November 2010
    Common opponents between Wisconsin and MSU:
    both @ Michigan: Wisconsin by 20, MSU by 17
    NW (Wisconsin home, MSU road): Wisco by 47, MSU by 8 (and yes, I know Persa was out for Wisco game, but still)
    both @ Iowa: Wisconsin wins by 1, MSU loses by 31
    Purdue (MSU at home, Wisconsin road): Wisconsin wins by 21, MSU by 4
    Minnesota (both at home): Wisconsin wins by 18, MSU by 23

    Also, MSU had the easier Big Ten schedule by not playing Ohio St (not their fault, but still true)
    Also, MSU lost later in the season

    Now, I understand the arguement that MSU beat Wisconsin (at home) by 10 and if I was an MSU fan or proponent, I'd be making the same arguement. But, as illustrated above, Wisconsin has a good arguement to be in the Rose Bowl as well. There are a lot of reasons cfb frusturates me, but I don't think Wisco going to Pasadena over MSU and/or OSU is anywhere near the top of the list

    Chisox
  • BettorThenMeBettorThenMe Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    sorry i had typo, you are correct about the ducks beating stanford. so oregon has one win over a team with 8 wins or more. but does that really change anything. the fact of the matter is, i don't know who the best team is and neither do you. i once heard an expert say the bcs does it's job because it creates controversary and people talk about it. i guess that is correct again this year. i am an arkansas alum, i would love to have a playoff. i would put the hogs up against anyone in the country right now, their 2 losses came to bama the defending champ who was number one at the time and to auburn who is currently number one. did i mention the hogs had the lead in the 4th quarter in both games. i hate auburn with a passion so i will pull for the ducks, i just hope they don't pee down their leg like they did last against ohio st. one last thing, there is no way no how oregon nor tcu would be unbeaten right now if the played in the sec. auburn might be unbeaten, but anyone who has watched them this season knows they have 9 lives, and for their sake thye better hope they haven't used all up come saturday.
    odux wrote: »
    Nice "FACTS"?? Oregon pounded the #5 team in the country and I do believe they have more than 10 wins!! AND if you would let the season finish Oregon will probably have 3 wins over 8 win teams and Stanford will probably have 2.... Not that your little facts mean anything.

    Football is all about match-ups........ not A + B = C + (3 pad the record scrimmages) so therefore C is greater than A.
  • hotbustophotbustop Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    We can point all this stuff to xupport any viewpoint. But the SEC has an inherint advantage with the "numbers" because they will always have the hihgher ranked teams. Arkansas did beat #1 Alabama.... but was/is Alabama really #1 deserving this year????? When people throw out the ranked opponent it's misleading because the SEC always starts the year highly ranked.
    I really think the Pac-10 is the best this year and Oregon and Stanford just may be the 2 best teams in football. But we will never know if this true and you'll never know if Arkansas is either because the system sucks.
  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    hotbustop wrote: »
    We can point all this stuff to xupport any viewpoint. But the SEC has an inherint advantage with the "numbers" because they will always have the hihgher ranked teams. Arkansas did beat #1 Alabama.... but was/is Alabama really #1 deserving this year????? When people throw out the ranked opponent it's misleading because the SEC always starts the year highly ranked.
    I really think the Pac-10 is the best this year and Oregon and Stanford just may be the 2 best teams in football. But we will never know if this true and you'll never know if Arkansas is either because the system sucks.

    pac 10 surely not the best conference my friend. I saw USC give some teams hell in that conference and then lose to notre dame?
  • oduxodux Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    newcombe wrote: »
    pac 10 surely not the best conference my friend. I saw USC give some teams hell in that conference and then lose to notre dame?

    Yes with Mitch Mustain (SEC starting QB that could not even break 3rd team at USC) at QB because Barkley was injured.

    By the way, didn't Nebraska lose @home to a Texas team that got rolled at home by a mediocre Pac-10 team UCLA..... So, does that mean the big-12 and Nebraska are bad conference, does that mean UCLA is better than Nebraska, I think not. newc, you cannot make analogies like that.

    I am NOT saying the Pac-10 is the best conference. But what I do know is that the Pac-10 only plays 33% of their over-all games vs teams ranked #41 or higher as opposed to the SEC- 44%, Big-10-56% and Big-12 49%.

    Conferences playing Teams ranked higher than #76... Pac-10=4 games, big-10=35 games, Big-12=18 games and the SEC= 29 games.

    I throw those numbers out to show that the argument is not a simple apples to apples comparison.
  • HowardBealHowardBeal Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    keep going guys, I think we are all going to agree with each other by the end of this thread and no one will have an argument about anything in college football......we are very, very close....

    can't wait to get those political threads back open to, as we were also very close to changing each others minds and coming to a group consensus about the way things should be done.........

    P.S. the Big 10 is a joke.....
  • newcombenewcombe Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    odux wrote: »
    Yes with Mitch Mustain (SEC starting QB that could not even break 3rd team at USC) at QB because Barkley was injured.

    By the way, didn't Nebraska lose @home to a Texas team that got rolled at home by a mediocre Pac-10 team UCLA..... So, does that mean the big-12 and Nebraska are bad conference, does that mean UCLA is better than Nebraska, I think not. newc, you cannot make analogies like that.

    I am NOT saying the Pac-10 is the best conference. But what I do know is that the Pac-10 only plays 33% of their over-all games vs teams ranked #41 or higher as opposed to the SEC- 44%, Big-10-56% and Big-12 49%.

    Conferences playing Teams ranked higher than #76... Pac-10=4 games, big-10=35 games, Big-12=18 games and the SEC= 29 games.

    I throw those numbers out to show that the argument is not a simple apples to apples comparison.

    LOL. always coming back with huskers and big 12 when not for a freaking second did I mention that at all. you amaze me everytime and I knew I should've bit my tongue before chiming back in to this thread. watch the huskers win the shitty big XII this weekend my friend, but that wouldn't mean much since it is a shitty conference.

    ps. didn't notre dame have their starting qb and rb out in that game too and completely dominated powerhouse USC?
  • oduxodux Senior Member
    edited December 2010
    newcombe wrote: »
    pac 10 surely not the best conference my friend. I saw USC give some teams hell in that conference and then lose to notre dame?
    Nope you did not mention Huskers. However, i simply used the same analogy you did using a powerhouse Big-12 team (TX). AND you are the only one saying that Nebraska and Big-12 is a shitty conference.

    I simply said you cannot make analogies like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.