Double standard or more anti-Pats bias?

[Real American Hero]

The problem is the BCS is a sham because there is no reasoning why one team makes it to the title game instead of another besides computers and human polls. You get a year like this year with 2 undefeated teams before the post season plus at least 5 1-loss teams that had a claim to be in that game. Any argument that excludes 3 of those 5 teams needs - usually "they didn't get it done on the field when they needed to" - glosses over the two undefeateds. Then you have USC who were out of the equation all season after their one loss because the Pac-10 sucks. Funny thing happened in the bowls though as the Pac-10 goes undefeated, while the Big-12 teams weren't exactly impressive, even Texas in their win.

If the BCS is replaced with a playoffs, or even a plus-1 format, you can be reasonably sure that teams that don't win their individual conference won't be in the equation with maybe one or two exceptions if they go to a playoff of more than 8 teams. The likely scenario would be all major conference winners with certain indies or small conferences replacing a major conference school if they were ranked ahead in all the polls.

I just can't get too worked up over feeling sorry for a team that doesn't win their division.

 

[patsox23]

i dont think this is anti-patriots at all. in fact, i think it may be pro-pats

I agree. If anything that post is supportive of the Patriots in a theoretical sense. My feeling on the situation goes like this:

We knew the rules. We all play by the same rules. We didn't qualify for the playoffs. It's frustrating, but it's a fact of life and we could've done more, and should've done more, to secure our post-season spot. We didn't. And there's no crying in football.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I agree. If anything that post is supportive of the Patriots in a theoretical sense. My feeling on the situation goes like this:

We knew the rules. We all play by the same rules. We didn't qualify for the playoffs. It's frustrating, but it's a fact of life and we could've done more, and should've done more, to secure our post-season spot. We didn't. And there's no crying in football.

My point wasn't to rip the blogger. I agree that his position supports the Pats. The question he asks is quite astute IMO. That's why I posted the thread. I live in the Dallas, TX area and the people here are crazy about the need for a playoff system in college ball right now because they say it isn't fair that the best team (they mean Longhorns) didn't get a chance to settle things on the field. Of course those same people who say they are so interested in fairness have no problem with a playoff system (NFL) that disqualifies a team that holds a better overall record than a quarter of the actual playoff field. So, it's not REALLY about making sure the best teams have a shot at the championship is it?

 

[Deus Irae]

My point wasn't to rip the blogger. I agree that his position supports the Pats. The question he asks is quite astute IMO. That's why I posted the thread. I live in the Dallas, TX area and the people here are crazy about the need for a playoff system in college ball right now because they say it isn't fair that the best team (they mean Longhorns) didn't get a chance to settle things on the field. Of course those same people who say they are so interested in fairness have no problem with a playoff system (NFL) that disqualifies a team that holds a better overall record than a quarter of the actual playoff field. So, it's not REALLY about making sure the best teams have a shot at the championship is it?

It never is, because the best teams often don't win when playoffs are involved.

 

[PittPatriot]

I think if Utah wants to play for a BCS Championship, then go out and schedule 1 major SEC, 1 Big 10, and maybe a Texas, USC, or Ohio State. The only time they played a notable team was in the bowl game vs. Alabama.

I have the same argument for NCAA mid-majors who don't get at large bids in March...go out and beat a UConn or UCLA and schedule a few ACC/Big East schools and then come and talk.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

It never is, because the best teams often don't win when playoffs are involved.

Well the argument I hear is that, at least, with a playoff system, the best teams have an opportunity to play for a championship. When I point out to them that the 2008 Patriots do not have the opportunity to play for a championship despite finishing with a better record than a quarter of the admitted playoff field they shrug their shoulders and say THAT's fair. LOL.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well the argument I hear is that, at least, with a playoff system, the best teams have an opportunity to play for a championship. When I point out to them that the 2008 Patriots do not have the opportunity to play for a championship despite finishing with a better record than a quarter of the admitted playoff field they shrug their shoulders and say THAT's fair. LOL.

Exactly. The "fairness" argument regarding playoffs/BCS is circular and neverending, because people interpret "fair" in the way that favors their opinion. There's no universal "fair" in this case.

Is it "fair" that teams that don't win their division make the playoffs?

Is it "fair" that teams with 8-8 records make the playoffs over 11-5 teams?

Is it "fair" that some teams have to face tougher schedules than others?

Is it "fair" that teams who draft better and win more games should be punished by having harder schedules and lower draft picks when they've been better at their jobs than the teams that keep blowing draft picks and losing games? Wouldn't it actually be more "fair" to just have a lottery for every single round of every single draft?

The reality is that the NFL is deliberately set up to be unfair, playoffs included. Every game's at one of the competing team's home field except the Super Bowl... How the hell does that make sense from a "fair" angle?

 

[Real American Hero]

I think if Utah wants to play for a BCS Championship, then go out and schedule 1 major SEC, 1 Big 10, and maybe a Texas, USC, or Ohio State. The only time they played a notable team was in the bowl game vs. Alabama.

I agree that there's not much likelihood they beat Florida, USC, Texas or Oklahoma but when the only argument for excluding two of those teams is that they lost a game it becomes a bit of a double standard.

Most of the power conferences get by on reputation and don't schedule tough out of conference opponents.

Florida-USC is the game I'd most have liked to see.

 

[BigEZPatsFan76]

Utah didn't lose a single game. How can one claim they should not be the champions?

Simply because Utah played a cream puff schedule, when you compare theirs to the Florida's and Oklahoma's. And, please don't let their "big" win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl "fool" you.


Alabama was ranked #1, for about half the season, then got derailed by Florida (clearly the best team in college football), in the SEC Championship game, effectively knocking them out of the national championship picture. Despite being 12-1 and SEC runner up, and a trip to one of the elite BCS bowls (Sugar Bowl), the wind was knocked out of their sails. These are 18-22 year old kids playing on emotions here. To them, in their minds, they were playing for a glorified "consolation" prize in the Sugar Bowl. Not to mention, Alabama had one or two major linemen suspended for the game. You could just see Alabama was going through the motions, whereas Utah was playing on high octane emotion and energy, and had much more to "play for" than Bama did. Believe me, I am NO Bama fan, but that is the way I see it.


I think, had Utah had played either Florida or Oklahoma in the Championship game, they would have gotten skull drug all over Dolphins Stadium for 4 quarters. No way, do they keep that game within 3 TD's against either one.


EZ76

 

[spacecrime]

How can this be perceived as anti Pats bias.

I think you and others are misunderstanding the OP.

The article was not anti-Pats. The OP (and article) were referring to the fact that a lot people -an uproar, really - are complaining that the best college teams are not competing for the Championship, yet have no problem with the Pats being better than a third of the NFL teams and not competing for the championship.

I would go beyond the article and say that a lot of folks are pleased the Pats did not make the playoffs despite being better than a third of the playoff teams.

I have no problem with the Pats being out of the playoffs, or with the BCS, and certainly am not advocating a change to BCS or NFL rules. I think both are fair.

But I do understand and agree with the hypocrisy pointed out in the article.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

But I do understand and agree with the hypocrisy pointed out in the article.

There is no hypocrisy in complaining about Utah and being fine with the Patriots being out. And I am a Patriots fan and not a Utah fan.

The Patriots had a path to win the SB, but lost that opportunity with the 5th loss this season. Utah has no path to win the BCS. Going undefeated and they still don't get a shot to play in the title game. There is nothing Utah could have done. With NE you can point to a missed catch, a blown lead, any one of the five games NE could have won but lost. What can you say to the Utah players. If you had won ______ game than you would have been able to play for the title. You can't say that, cause they won every freaking game. Any system in which an undefeated team is not the champion is a flawed system. Utah completed every task, they won every game.

Also how many Patriots fans were complaining about the playoff structure before this year? Almost none.

Many people have felt the BCS has been unfair for a long time. The vast majority of which are not Utah fans. Even the President elect is on record that there should be playoffs. College football commander-in-chief? - College Football - Rivals.com

 

[Rob0729]

There is no double standard or anti-Pats' bias. Every year the BCS gets slammed for being unfair. It is a yearly ritual. This year they just now have an undefeated team to use as the poster child of why it is unfair.

There has been plenty in the media who have complained about the Pats not getting in, but this is the first time in 23 years that a 11 win team hasn't gotten into the playoffs (and it was 16 years before that when it happened last). Every year there seems to be a team or two screwed by the BCS. People know this was a fluke year for the NFL which may not happen again for another 23 years.

 

[upstater1]

I think there is one clear difference between college and pro. In pro, there are clearly defined rule on how a teams enters the post season. According to those rules, we did not qualify.

Looking @ college, its a "ranking" system based on votes and some computer program. Most ppl just don't ~trust~ that system to be correct. You can think it stinks that the pats are not in the playoffs, but at least its explainable according to the rules.

Yes, but what the columnist is suggesting is that a playoff system could alter the way people look at the regular season, and it's also going to develop controversy when they cut off the playoff to 8 teams. Utah and Penn State were on the edge of the BCS system this year.

 

[upstater1]

Because the NFL system is fair. At the beginning of the season all 32 teams have the opportunity to win the superbowl. In the NFL if you go 19-0 you win the SB. No ifs, no buts, no and.

Ever NFL coach can tell his team, "win every game and we will be the champions".

In college the majority of teams can not be the champion even if they win all their games due to BCS bias. That's unfair.

While I am disappointed that the NEP didn't make the playoffs it is a fair system. Utah not having a shot at the title is unfair and is a horrible system. There is no comparison between Utah and NEP.

The fact that a losing team can make the playoffs doesn't make it a fair system, IMO. It can be improved. It's an OK system. They need to change it to prevent teams from losing records from going to the playoffs.

 

[upstater1]

I think if Utah wants to play for a BCS Championship, then go out and schedule 1 major SEC, 1 Big 10, and maybe a Texas, USC, or Ohio State. The only time they played a notable team was in the bowl game vs. Alabama.

I have the same argument for NCAA mid-majors who don't get at large bids in March...go out and beat a UConn or UCLA and schedule a few ACC/Big East schools and then come and talk.

Utah had a decent schedule. They played a few ranked teams and won. Plus, the MWC owned the Pac-10 this year. If you're making that argument about USC, then acknowledge that USC had a weaker schedule than Utah. That's precisely the problem. Utah beat Alabama, Oregon St (a team that beat USC), and they beat BYU. They have one more OOC win that escapes me.

If you look at the MWC this year, they owned the Pac-10.

 

[Deus Irae]

Utah had a decent schedule. They played a few ranked teams and won. Plus, the MWC owned the Pac-10 this year. If you're making that argument about USC, then acknowledge that USC had a weaker schedule than Utah. That's precisely the problem. Utah beat Alabama, Oregon St (a team that beat USC), and they beat BYU. They have one more OOC win that escapes me.

If you look at the MWC this year, they owned the Pac-10.

The weak Pac-10 was noted and understood. It's why USC wasn't playing Florida or Oklahoma for the title. People need to accept a simple truth: Like it or not, the BCS is, at least in some ways, actually more fair than the NFL playoff system. Neither is perfect, but the BCS has at least put in a computerized system to take some of the human biases out of individual decisions.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Exactly. The "fairness" argument regarding playoffs/BCS is circular and neverending, because people interpret "fair" in the way that favors their opinion. There's no universal "fair" in this case.

Is it "fair" that teams that don't win their division make the playoffs?

Is it "fair" that teams with 8-8 records make the playoffs over 11-5 teams?

Is it "fair" that some teams have to face tougher schedules than others?

Is it "fair" that teams who draft better and win more games should be punished by having harder schedules and lower draft picks when they've been better at their jobs than the teams that keep blowing draft picks and losing games? Wouldn't it actually be more "fair" to just have a lottery for every single round of every single draft?

The reality is that the NFL is deliberately set up to be unfair, playoffs included. Every game's at one of the competing team's home field except the Super Bowl... How the hell does that make sense from a "fair" angle?

Good points all. Especially that "people interpret 'fair' in the way that favors their opinion." After the reaction to the Colts loss in OT last weekend with media people calling for the NFL to look at the rules for overtime this offseason, I thought if it had been the Colts, Giants, or Cowboys left out instead of the Pats you'd probably have heard an uproar instead of a pin drop.

 

[Deus Irae]

Good points all. Especially that "people interpret 'fair' in the way that favors their opinion." After the reaction to the Colts loss in OT last weekend with media people calling for the NFL to look at the rules for overtime this offseason, I thought if it had been the Colts, Giants, or Cowboys left out instead of the Pats you'd probably have heard an uproar instead of a pin drop.

It was interesting that some of the ESPN talkers admitted that the fact that Manning didn't get a chance to even things up had them focusing on it a lot more than they would have been if it had been Rivers who'd been unable to get his chance.

 

[spacecrime]

There is no hypocrisy in complaining about Utah and being fine with the Patriots being out. And I am a Patriots fan and not a Utah fan.

The Patriots had a path to win the SB, but lost that opportunity with the 5th loss this season. Utah has no path to win the BCS. Going undefeated and they still don't get a shot to play in the title game. There is nothing Utah could have done.

They could have played good teams instead of only scheduling weaker teams. Are you seriously saying that Utah was one of the two best teams in the country? You cannot please everyone, of course, and there will always be complainers. But lacking a playoff, I think the BCS does a good job of separating the contenders from the pretenders. And Utah is a pretender.

The BCS isn't perfect, but I think it does and excellent job of matching up top teams for the Championship.

Also, again, I have no issue with the Pats being out. I think the rules are fine. But I think if you say that only the best teams should should compete for Championships and it is wrong if they don't, and you have a big problem if it is Team A and not a problem is it is Team B, then you have what I call hypocriscy. I suppose you could call it a double standard or something else.

At any rate, I see what the article writer was getting at, even if others don't, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

But I think if you say that only the best teams should should compete for Championships and it is wrong if they don't, and you have a big problem if it is Team A and not a problem is it is Team B, then you have what I call hypocriscy. I suppose you could call it a double standard or something else.

At any rate, I see what the article writer was getting at, even if others don't, and I'll leave it at that.

Good call. Hypocrisy or double standard. Call it whatever you want. IMO, if you're honest, when you get to the bottom of it, you'll probably find it's being fueled by some kind of bias or rooting interest.