PDA

View Full Version : BCS 2007 Discussion Thread



Pages : [1] 2

Caveat Emperor
11-11-2007, 10:54 PM
Getting down towards the end of the season -- lots of things are still up in the air.

LSU is #1, but still has the SEC Championship game to contend with.

Oregon has 2 straight road games (albeit against very beatable opponents).

Kansas is undefeated, but has to deal with #6 Missouri, PLUS a possible matchup with #3 Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship. Can anyone honestly justify keeping the Jayhawks out of the NC game if they have two wins against two Top-5 BCS opponents? For that matter, should the winner of the Big 12 automatically be penciled in for the title game?

Finally, what of the Hawaii Warriors? They're undefeated, but have played a schedule that's so soft it has been termed quad-ply. Can a team that doesn't beat a single BCS-conference team (their best win would be over Boise State) make a BCS Bowl? Even if they are undefeated?

Will UC make a BCS bowl? Will Michigan win the Big 10 and head to the Rose bowl even after losing to a 1AA program to open the year?

Make your predictions about the most hated system in sports here!

MaineRed
11-11-2007, 11:58 PM
The Big 12 needs either Kansas to win their league OR for Oregon or LSU to lose for them to get a spot. If Oklahoma wins that league while Oregon and LSU run the table, i think we will see the Ducks and Tigers in the title game.

If Kansas wins out they will jump Oregon. At that time Pac 10 fans will claim bias.

West Virginia and OSU need help. The biggest help could come from Oklahome State. If they can beat OKlahoma it would mean all 3 of the top Big 12 teams could still lose. Ok State beats OU, Kansas or Mizzou has to lose. Then say you get Kansas and OU in the Big 12 title game and OU wins. That is 3 of the top 6 out just like that. Then all you need is either an Oregon or an LSU loss. And one of them is bound to lose.

Hawaii has no business being in this discussion.

Johnny Footstool
11-12-2007, 10:56 AM
Kansas can earn a shot at the national title by winning out. (BTW - my wife was in Vegas last week and tried to place a $20 bet on the Jayhawks, only to find out they're not one of the teams listed in the sports book's betting roster. Friggin' Iowa State was listed, but not KU. She had to bet on the field instead.)

It's possible that Missouri could jump Oregon by winning out. In doing so, they'd have to beat #3 Kansas and #4 Oklahoma, which would be a huge boost to their strength of schedule.

Oklahoma, OTOH, doesn't control their own fate, since they'll only be playing one top-ranked team (either KU or MU). Oregon or LSU has to lose in order for the Sooners to have a shot.

Boston Red
11-12-2007, 11:01 AM
Can a team that doesn't beat a single BCS-conference team (their best win would be over Boise State) make a BCS Bowl? Even if they are undefeated?


Hawaii will also have to beat Washington to remain undefeated. If they get past Nevada, Boise and UW, I think they should play in a BCS game. Their schedule is obviously bad, but all you can do is beat everyone you play. We'd then find out in NOLA if the Rainbows were for real.

paintmered
11-12-2007, 11:26 AM
Hawaii will also have to beat Washington to remain undefeated. If they get past Nevada, Boise and UW, I think they should play in a BCS game. Their schedule is obviously bad, but all you can do is beat everyone you play. We'd then find out in NOLA if the Rainbows were for real.

Part of the reason why the BCS added a fifth game was to allow more non-BCS conference participation. So we got to see Boise State in a BCS game last year. I see nothing wrong with Hawaii playing in a BCS game if they go undefeated. They would be more than deserving.

Plus, I think it's really fun to watch the little guy get to tee it up against the big boys.

Cyclone792
11-12-2007, 11:39 AM
If LSU wins out - including the SEC Championship game - then they'll get a national title shot. Likewise, if Kansas wins out - including beating both Missouri and Oklahoma - then they deserve a national title shot.

If Oregon wins out and one of LSU or Kansas stumbles, then Oregon will deserve a national title shot.

If Hawaii goes undefeated, then they absolutely deserve a BCS bowl bid.

And if UC wins out, then they'll have a very good shot at a BCS bowl bid. They don't necessarily control their own destiny, but the only help they'd need is for West Virginia to beat Connecticut in two weeks, which is likely since the game will be at West Virginia. Obviously it's possible for Connecticut to win that game, but I do think that this Saturday's West Virginia @ Cincinnati game will likely decide who wins the Big East.

Johnny Footstool
11-12-2007, 12:47 PM
So basically, the only teams definitely controlling their own destiny are LSU and KU. There is a chance that Missouri could win out and see it's title shot go to Oregon.

Roy Tucker
11-12-2007, 12:54 PM
Nothing against Kansas, but a NC game with them in it doesn't have a lot of appeal to me.

LSU-Oregon is a good matchup.

traderumor
11-12-2007, 01:01 PM
I saw Kansas play a little bit for the first time Saturday night. If its LSU, after what UK did to them, they better hope that someone knocks off Kansas. I think they will have a lot of trouble outscoring them, which is probably what it would come down to.

As for Oregon, aren't they banged up? Is that short-term or for the season?

dabvu2498
11-12-2007, 01:06 PM
I saw Kansas play a little bit for the first time Saturday night. If its LSU, after what UK did to them, they better hope that someone knocks off Kansas. I think they will have a lot of trouble outscoring them, which is probably what it would come down to.

As for Oregon, aren't they banged up? Is that short-term or for the season?

I didn't see all of it, but I was real impressed with Kansas WR Marcus Henry. And supposedly their best WR had been knocked out earlier in the game.

Their game with Mizzou will be real interesting.

MaineRed
11-12-2007, 01:14 PM
I saw Kansas play a little bit for the first time Saturday night. If its LSU, after what UK did to them, they better hope that someone knocks off Kansas. I think they will have a lot of trouble outscoring them, which is probably what it would come down to.

As for Oregon, aren't they banged up? Is that short-term or for the season?

Kansas put 43 on a team that this season has given up 45 to Texas Tech, 41 to Troy, 39 to Kansas State and 38 to Texas. Pretty much everyone with any sort of offense has put up numbers on the Cowboys.

You may be right about Kansas but judging them from a game against Oklahoma State doesn't seem fair and neither does judging LSU from a game against Kentucky the week after they played Florida. Kansas has had ten pretty easy games. They haven't been beat up from many of their games. We'll see what they have when they play some real competition but laying 43 on a bad defense doesn't impress me.

MWM
11-12-2007, 02:11 PM
I think Oregon is better than LSU and should be #1, even if LSU wins out. I get all the strength of schedule arguments and all that, but I just think they're a better team, and given that both have one loss, I'd be inclined to rank Oregon ahead. Actually, I think LSU is very much over-rated (Note: this isn't a conference thing, so don't turn this into another conference discussion. it's an individual team thing). While I think they're capable of beating anyone, I also think there are several teams that could, an probably would, beat them. They're not near as good as they're being made out to be, IMO. I'd take Oregon over them on a neutral site.

BearcatShane
11-12-2007, 02:19 PM
If UC beats WVU and Syracuse and plays in the Orange Bowl I think I'll seriously cry. This program has come so far.

Chip R
11-12-2007, 02:24 PM
I think Oregon is better than LSU and should be #1, even if LSU wins out. I get all the strength of schedule arguments and all that, but I just think they're a better team, and given that both have one loss, I'd be inclined to rank Oregon ahead. Actually, I think LSU is very much over-rated (Note: this isn't a conference thing, so don't turn this into another conference discussion. it's an individual team thing). While I think they're capable of beating anyone, I also think there are several teams that could, an probably would, beat them. They're not near as good as they're being made out to be, IMO. I'd take Oregon over them on a neutral site.


But if Oregon plays LSU in the BCS championship game, it's going to be in New Orleans. It's nominally a neutral site but it's akin to playing tOSU in Cincinnati or Columbus.

paintmered
11-12-2007, 02:29 PM
But if Oregon plays LSU in the BCS championship game, it's going to be in New Orleans. It's nominally a neutral site but it's akin to playing tOSU in Cincinnati or Columbus.

It'd be no different than playing someone like Miami in the Orange Bowl or UCLA or USC in the Rose Bowl. It's always a road game for the north teams.

BuckeyeRed27
11-12-2007, 02:31 PM
It'd be no different than playing someone like Miami in the Orange Bowl or UCLA or USC in the Rose Bowl. It's always a road game for the north teams.

Duck fans will travel, but it would still be 70/30 LSU. But I think LSU will lose before they get there.

MWM
11-12-2007, 02:32 PM
But if Oregon plays LSU in the BCS championship game, it's going to be in New Orleans. It's nominally a neutral site but it's akin to playing tOSU in Cincinnati or Columbus.


So LSU should be ranked higher because of that? That's all I was saying. I think if they played on a neutral site, I believe Oregon would win. I think they're a better team. I'm aware the BCS title game will be in LA, creating a home game for LSU and that will play a huge factor in who's favored and who wins. But that should have ZERO impact on the rankings.

NorrisHopper30
11-12-2007, 02:35 PM
If at the beginning of the year I told you UC could be in a BCS bowl and 10-2 if they beat WVU and Syracuse at the end of the year, what would you say to me?

pedro
11-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Duck fans will travel, but it would still be 70/30 LSU. But I think LSU will lose before they get there.

This place will go nuts if Oregon gets to the BCS title game.

Chip R
11-12-2007, 03:18 PM
So LSU should be ranked higher because of that? That's all I was saying. I think if they played on a neutral site, I believe Oregon would win. I think they're a better team. I'm aware the BCS title game will be in LA, creating a home game for LSU and that will play a huge factor in who's favored and who wins. But that should have ZERO impact on the rankings.


Where in the world did you get that from? All I was doing was responding to what you said about Oregon beating LSU at a neutral site. The only way it's going to happen is if both teams stay where they are and end up playing in New Orleans which is ostensibly neutral but it really isn't. I didn't say a word about the ratings which are irrelevant if both teams end up 1 & 2. It won't matter who is 1 and who is 2.

MWM
11-12-2007, 04:57 PM
Where in the world did you get that from? All I was doing was responding to what you said about Oregon beating LSU at a neutral site. The only way it's going to happen is if both teams stay where they are and end up playing in New Orleans which is ostensibly neutral but it really isn't. I didn't say a word about the ratings which are irrelevant if both teams end up 1 & 2. It won't matter who is 1 and who is 2.


My original message was giving my rationale for why I thought Oregon was better (if they played on a neutral site). I was talking solely for the purposes of ranking. So when you responded with a "but they'll be playing in LA" I wasn't sure if you meant that should factor in or not.

Chip R
11-12-2007, 05:07 PM
My original message was giving my rationale for why I thought Oregon was better (if they played on a neutral site). I was talking solely for the purposes of ranking. So when you responded with a "but they'll be playing in LA" I wasn't sure if you meant that should factor in or not.


Of course it shouldn't factor into the rankings. The rankings are irrelevant if both teams are 1 & 2. But, if they do play each other this season, it's going to be in the Superdome and that isn't a neutral site. If Oregon can go in there and beat them, there will be no doubt who is the better team. If LSU wins, there will be people that say that they won cause it was a quasi-home game for them. It's a bit unfair to LSU to say that but I'm sure they won't care.

MWM
11-12-2007, 05:15 PM
Well, it has to be played somewhere.

traderumor
11-12-2007, 06:50 PM
Ohio State travels so well that the same can be said of them in whatever bowl game they go to.

OnBaseMachine
11-12-2007, 07:17 PM
Judging from the past, there is no way Oregon will be picked to play in the BCS national championship. 2001, undeserving Nebraska is picked over Oregon. Nebraska gets crushed. 2003, Oklahoma is picked over USC. USC wins by two touchdowns over Michigan while OK gets beat handily. 2005 - OK is picked over Auburn. OK loses in a total blowout. The only way Oregon will be allowed to play in the NC is if LSU loses.

MaineRed
11-12-2007, 07:40 PM
But, if they do play each other this season, it's going to be in the Superdome and that isn't a neutral site.

I have to disagree. LSU has already played a road game this season in the Superdome so it certainly is not their field. The school is in Baton Rouge, not New Orleans. If Florida was playing in the Orange Bowl it isn't a home game for them.

Is it in their backyard? Obviously. But they don't control the tickets and its not like many tickets for something like that go to local residents anyway.

BuckeyeRed27
11-12-2007, 10:01 PM
I have to disagree. LSU has already played a road game this season in the Superdome so it certainly is not their field. The school is in Baton Rouge, not New Orleans. If Florida was playing in the Orange Bowl it isn't a home game for them.

Is it in their backyard? Obviously. But they don't control the tickets and its not like many tickets for something like that go to local residents anyway.

Are you serious right now?
The majority of tickets that aren't alloted to the schools would go to LSU fans no matter who they play. It is very expensive to go to a BCS game let alone the NC game. When you cut out a plane ticket and possibly a hotel stay you're going to have a very friendly LSU crowd.

Florida is probably going to play in a bowl game in Orlando or Tampa. I bet the crowd is pretty Gator friendly despite it not being a "home game".

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 07:32 AM
Yup, and let me guess, if Michigan and Oregon play in the Sugar Bowl nobody will show because the game is so far away and it is too hard to get plane tickets and hotels rooms. I suppose the crowd will be there but will be completely neutral?

Ohio State and Miami managed to fill the Fiesta Bowl a few years back or were those all Arizona and ASU fans?

Who was sitting in all the seats at the Oragne Bowl when OU and USC played? Miami fans?

I don't deny that LSU fans will have an easier time to make arrangements. All they need to do is a get a ticket and they don't need travel plans. But this is a big game and most of these schools have hundreds of thousands of fans, many of whom ARE willing to throw down the cash for plane tickets, hotel rooms and everything else. It is the MAIN reason these bowl games have survied, continued to grow and spawned more bowl games. Fans travel.

GAC
11-13-2007, 08:16 AM
Yup, and let me guess, if Michigan and Oregon play in the Sugar Bowl nobody will show because the game is so far away and it is too hard to get plane tickets and hotels rooms. I suppose the crowd will be there but will be completely neutral?

I doubt you'll see that matchup after what Oregon did to Michigan earlier in the season.

I can see Orgeon getting squeezed out fo the title game if LSU stays undefeated and Kansas wins out. Kansas should have no problem with Iowa State; but after that it's Missouri and then Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship. Those two teams are #5 and #4 respectively in the BCS.

Oregon has games against three unranked opponents in Arizona, UCLA, and Oregon State.

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 09:04 AM
I doubt you'll see that matchup after what Oregon did to Michigan earlier in the season.

I was just giving an example of two teams that are a good distance from New Orleans that would fill the Dome with their folks if they were to play in that game. It wouldn't be Oregon and Michigan in front of a bunch of LSU people. Oregon and Michigan would fill the place using as many tickets as they could get their hands on.

RBA
11-13-2007, 12:32 PM
My wife is from Eugene and I'm hoping to be able to live there once I'm out of the military. Hopefully, I can find a decent paying job there. Go Ducks!

BuckeyeRed27
11-13-2007, 03:38 PM
Yup, and let me guess, if Michigan and Oregon play in the Sugar Bowl nobody will show because the game is so far away and it is too hard to get plane tickets and hotels rooms. I suppose the crowd will be there but will be completely neutral?

Ohio State and Miami managed to fill the Fiesta Bowl a few years back or were those all Arizona and ASU fans?

Who was sitting in all the seats at the Oragne Bowl when OU and USC played? Miami fans?

I don't deny that LSU fans will have an easier time to make arrangements. All they need to do is a get a ticket and they don't need travel plans. But this is a big game and most of these schools have hundreds of thousands of fans, many of whom ARE willing to throw down the cash for plane tickets, hotel rooms and everything else. It is the MAIN reason these bowl games have survied, continued to grow and spawned more bowl games. Fans travel.

If you have two teams that aren't close and you are at a truely nutural site than the crowd will be much closer to 50/50. When it is less than 200 miles from one campus you are going to have a crowd much closer to 70/30 assuming the fan bases are roughly equal.

Chip R
11-13-2007, 04:54 PM
If you have two teams that aren't close and you are at a truely nutural site than the crowd will be much closer to 50/50. When it is less than 200 miles from one campus you are going to have a crowd much closer to 70/30 assuming the fan bases are roughly equal.


And it's not only playing in front of a partisan crowd. It's sleeping in your own bed at night rather than sleeping in a hotel. It's practicing at your own place rather than someone else's. It's not traveling 2 time zones to playthe game. It's eating food you're used to rather than eating something you're not used to. It's being with your family and friends rather than with just your teammates and coaches.

Of course none of these obstacles are insurmountable. USC lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl a few years ago, Miami has tasted defeat in the Orange Bowl and Dolphins Stadium. But let's not pretend those are neutral sites.

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 06:48 PM
Players at LSU aren't going to be sleeping in their own beds, they are going to be in a hotel just like whoever they are playing. This is a common practice. The meals are all structured and no different than the meals you would get on the road or during any team meal. Its not like whoever goes to down to New Orleans is only going to be fed jumbalaya.

LSU is not going to be strolling around campus, hanging with friends and family. They are going to be holed up at their hotel eating what is put in front of them and watching video and partaking in meetings. No they don't have to travel (as far). But they still have to pack, get things in order and prepare for the game. Having the game in their home state makes for more distractions, not less.

I don't see how you can call it a home game. A home game is easy to define. It is played in your stadium in front of your crowd, not a 60-40 crowd or whatever other number you guys what to throw a guess at (which is all you are doing). The game is played on a neutral field that just happens to also be in Louisiana. It is nowhere near the advantage that is being played off here.

Chip R
11-13-2007, 06:56 PM
Players at LSU aren't going to be sleeping in their own beds, they are going to be in a hotel just like whoever they are playing. This is a common practice. The meals are all structured and no different than the meals you would get on the road or during any team meal. Its not like whoever goes to down to New Orleans is only going to be fed jumbalaya.

LSU is not going to be strolling around campus, hanging with friends and family. They are going to be holed up at their hotel eating what is put in front of them and watching video and partaking in meetings. No they don't have to travel (as far). But they still have to pack, get things in order and prepare for the game. Having the game in their home state makes for more distractions, not less.

I don't see how you can call it a home game. A home game is easy to define. It is played in your stadium in front of your crowd, not a 60-40 crowd or whatever other number you guys what to throw a guess at (which is all you are doing). The game is played on a neutral field that just happens to also be in Louisiana. It is nowhere near the advantage that is being played off here.


And you know all this for sure?

OnBaseMachine
11-13-2007, 07:03 PM
I doubt you'll see that matchup after what Oregon did to Michigan earlier in the season.

I can see Orgeon getting squeezed out fo the title game if LSU stays undefeated and Kansas wins out. Kansas should have no problem with Iowa State; but after that it's Missouri and then Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship. Those two teams are #5 and #4 respectively in the BCS.

Oregon has games against three unranked opponents in Arizona, UCLA, and Oregon State.

Even after Kansas plays Missouri and overrated Oklahoma, there schedule still won't be as tough as Oregon's was this year. Oregon played at Michigan which is never an easy game, plus they played top 5 ASU, then #6 Cal (back when Longshore was fully healthy and they were actually good), and #11 ranked USC. Plus Houston and Fresno State are much better OOC opponents than the crap teams Kansas played.

Kansas is a great team but they have played an awful schedule.

MWM
11-13-2007, 07:28 PM
MR, are you seriously saying that a game played in New Orleans wouldn't effectively be a home game? Is that the argument you're making?

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 07:32 PM
And you know all this for sure?

YES! Division one teams like LSU don't sleep in their own beds the night before they play an actual home game. They go to a hotel. Have you EVER heard of a kid from a big time school getting in trouble the night before a game?

Nope and that is your reason. They are holed up, eating what the coaches feed them and they are watching tape.

Chip R
11-13-2007, 07:36 PM
YES! Division one teams like LSU don't sleep in their own beds the night before they play an actual home game. They go to a hotel. Have you EVER heard of a kid from a big time school getting in trouble the night before a game?

Nope and that is your reason. They are holed up, eating what the coaches feed them and they are watching tape.


Perhaps they do the night before but not for several days like Oregon would be doing.

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 07:37 PM
Chip, if Oregon is going to be in New Orleans the Thursday before the game, don't you think LSU will be in New Orleans too? And they aren't going to commute back and forth. They will have media responsibilities that begin at the same time as Oregon. Both teams will check into hotels the same day, I bet. Maybe not but I hardly think that will have any outcome on the game. The night before both teams will in hotels.

BuckeyeRed27
11-13-2007, 07:45 PM
Chip, if Oregon is going to be in New Orleans the Thursday before the game, don't you think LSU will be in New Orleans too? And they aren't going to commute back and forth. They will have media responsibilities that begin at the same time as Oregon. Both teams will check into hotels the same day, I bet. Maybe not but I hardly think that will have any outcome on the game. The night before both teams will in hotels.

That's fantastic, but if you seriously think that LSU wouldn't have an advantage playing in New Orleans than I really don't know what to say.

Marc D
11-13-2007, 07:55 PM
Anyone catch the SuperBowl a couple years back when the Steelers fans flooded Detroit? Not quite so much walk up traffic from the folks from Seattle.

Each school gets an equal allotment but the ticket brokers, scalpers etc get the lionshare of the total. Those tickets almost inevetibly end up in the hands of fans who's team is geographically closer to the event.

Last years Sugar Bowl was LSU vs ND. Their teams demise notwithstanding, nobody out travels the Domers. The crowd was heavy in favor of the locals.

Pretending USC doesn't have an advantage playing in the Rose Bowl, LSU doesn't have an advantage playing in the Superdome or that OSU wouldn't have an advantage playing a Bowl game in Cleveland is just silly.

GAC
11-13-2007, 08:05 PM
No matter where it's at they'll probably be plenty of Cub fans! http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/basic/excited.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 08:40 PM
That's fantastic, but if you seriously think that LSU wouldn't have an advantage playing in New Orleans than I really don't know what to say.

An advantage? I haven't exactly said that. I have questioned certain aspects of that advantage but "advantage" as a whole, I don't believe I have said that.

I disagreed with Chip's take that it is a home game for LSU if they get there. I'm a Syracuse basketball fan and I can't imagine callling a game outside of the Carrier Dome, a home game. A game in their backyard, in their state or even region? Sure. But it is not their home. It is not their locker room. Nothing is the same except the state the game will be in.

I'm sure the crowd would be bigger depending on the opponent. But that would be the case if the game was in Atlanta and nobody could call that a home game. An advantage? Perhaps.

MaineRed
11-13-2007, 08:45 PM
Anyone catch the SuperBowl a couple years back when the Steelers fans flooded Detroit? Not quite so much walk up traffic from the folks from Seattle.

Pretty bad example if you ask me. Do you really think this would have been the same if the Cowboys were representing the NFL instead of a Seattle team that nobody is a fan of?

Seattle vs. Pittsburgh in terms of number of loyal fans is a blowout in favor of the Steelers. Steeler fans probably buy Super Bowl tickets before the season starts just in case.

And NFL teams aren't given 30,000 tickets to hand out to their fans/boosters.

The ole apples/oranges argument gets played quite a bit on this board but I have to use it again.

IslandRed
11-13-2007, 09:24 PM
Perhaps they do the night before but not for several days like Oregon would be doing.

Chip, MR is right on this one. Playing in a bowl isn't like a typical road game where they can show up whenever they want. The bowl tells the team when it's supposed to arrive in town, and once there, it's about organized events and photo ops and all that stuff. There's a team hotel, and even the practice times and sites are scripted in advance. It's just part of the deal, even if the bowl is down the road from school.

LSU would have a considerable home-crowd advantage in New Orleans, to be sure, but the week-before stuff tends to otherwise minimize the advantages of proximity.

OnBaseMachine
11-15-2007, 09:31 PM
Well, there goes Oregon's season. Dennis Dixon just re-injured his knee and it looked bad. It just wasn't meant to be for Oregon. They were looking like the best team in the nation but injuries have completely destroyed them. Jeremiah Johnson, Brian Paysinger, Cameron Colvin , and now Dixon are gone to injuries. Those are four of their biggest playmakers. I don't see them winning out now without Dixon.

MWM
11-15-2007, 09:35 PM
That's too bad. He's a fun player to watch and is the Heisman winner, IMO, even if he doesn't play another down.

OnBaseMachine
11-15-2007, 09:42 PM
That dropped TD pass in the endzone not only cost Oregon a TD and a 15-0 lead but it also cost them Dixon. He would have been on the sideline watching his defense at the time, though it's impossible to tell whether or not if he would've injured the knee later in the game.

OnBaseMachine
11-15-2007, 09:50 PM
It makes me sick that a school like Oklahoma will probably reach the NC this season. Oregon has no chance at winning this game. Brady Leaf is one of the worst QB's I have seen. He's awful. Oregon has no chance with him at QB.

KronoRed
11-15-2007, 10:04 PM
The Ducks D should get the blame here, looks like Mike Stoops has someones number

OnBaseMachine
11-15-2007, 10:10 PM
The Ducks D has been on the field a lot because of a dropped TD pass for an INT plus Brady Leaf sucks which means the Ducks defense is on the field. They are just an average team without Dixon. With him, they are the best team I've seen this year.

I would honestly bring in Justin Roper, the 3rd string QB. He's a young guy with decent potential. Leaf is awful.

OnBaseMachine
11-15-2007, 10:16 PM
Pac-10 refs strike again. Clearly there was a block in the back there on the ount return and yet they don't call it. I'm sick and tired of horrible officiating this year.

LoganBuck
11-16-2007, 07:08 AM
This is all going to get very ugly. If Ohio State wins tomorrow, WVU wins out and if whoever comes out of the Big 12 isn't Kansas. This will turn into another beauty contest. Oklahoma lost to Colorado, Ohio State lost to Illinois, and West Virginia lost to South Florida. Oklahoma has the worst loss. I would say that Illinois is probably better than South Florida at this juncture. LSU lost to Kentucky but they are a strong number one, but they could still get knocked off again. Don't forget about Hawaii and Georgia. Missouri is also muddying the waters. My head hurts.

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2007, 09:36 AM
Oklahoma will move to #2 in the polls with a win over Texas Tech, and now they control their own destiny for the national championship.

So does Kansas.

So does Missouri.

If any of those three teams win out, they should earn the chance to face LSU.

bucksfan2
11-16-2007, 11:16 AM
Can you say split Natl Champions

bucksfan2
11-16-2007, 11:25 AM
Oklahoma will move to #2 in the polls with a win over Texas Tech, and now they control their own destiny for the national championship.

So does Kansas.

So does Missouri.

If any of those three teams win out, they should earn the chance to face LSU.

But why? What has LSU done to show they are the #1 team in the nation? Right now the only team that has a legit claim to be in the championship game if they win out is Kansas. Other than that no one is more deserving than anyone else. The only reason LSU is #1 is because they were ranked there at the start of the season.

guttle11
11-16-2007, 11:34 AM
But why? What has LSU done to show they are the #1 team in the nation? Right now the only team that has a legit claim to be in the championship game if they win out is Kansas. Other than that no one is more deserving than anyone else. The only reason LSU is #1 is because they were ranked there at the start of the season.

Not true at all. They blew out a highly ranked Virginia Tech team in the OOC. No other contender has a win like that OOC. If they win their conference, they deserve to go.

The winner of the Big 12, provided they only have one loss, deserves to go because they would have beaten a top team late in the year. OSU, ASU and WVU haven't beaten one all year, in conference or OOC. ASU can beat USC on Thursday and jump ahead of OSU and WVU in that regard.

The BCS will absolutely get it right this year with no real argument. Unless all the Big 12 teams lose and the last spot comes down to WVU, ASU, and OSU. Then someone with a good case will get left out. But I'd be shocked if that happens.

dabvu2498
11-16-2007, 11:41 AM
We could have BCS bowl games with Michigan, Arizona State, Tennessee, Virginia, Cincinnati, and Hawaii.

FIRELEFT
11-16-2007, 11:47 AM
What happens when LSU gets beat by Arkansas.(it's my dream, don't wake me up yet)

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2007, 12:23 PM
What happens when LSU gets beat by Arkansas.(it's my dream, don't wake me up yet)

A BCS disaster.

Or a Highlander-style Big 12 face off for a single spot in the championship game.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 12:37 PM
But why? What has LSU done to show they are the #1 team in the nation? Right now the only team that has a legit claim to be in the championship game if they win out is Kansas. Other than that no one is more deserving than anyone else. The only reason LSU is #1 is because they were ranked there at the start of the season.

* Of all the teams in the country with one loss or less LSU is the only team that has wins over two top 12 BCS teams.

* They have the most impressive OOC win in the land.

* They are 5-1 vs. the BCS top 30. Kansas is 0-0. Cincinnati and Oklahoma are the only teams to be undefeateed vs. the top 30 with more than one win and both are only 2-0. 5-1 is pretty impressive. Florida and Mississippi State are the only teams to play that many games aginst the Top 30.

This seems like more than enough reasons to have LSU number one right now. Maybe Kansas moves ahead of them IF they win the those two big games but nobody else can make the claims LSU can for a top spot.

MWM
11-16-2007, 12:47 PM
This is why I hate "polls". We can speculate and evaluate 'til we're blue in the face. But until they get on the field But if you've got 5 teams from BCS conferences with one loss, how can we say that selecting the two we think are the best is "getting it right." It's still based opinion. If LSU wins out, then they certainly deserve a shot at the title, based on the current system. But that system is so flawed. Because ultimately, all they did was go out and beat everyone on their schedule but one team. That would be the same thing other teams could say as well. All you can do is go out and play who's on your schedule. I hate the idea of trying to subjectively decide who's most "deserving." Because who is the best and who's most deserving might not always be the same thing.

No matter how strongly we feel like LSU is most deserving, this whole thing is a mess. And while the Big 12 who comes through with only 1 loss can also claime to be deserving, they're no more suited to play in the title game than OSU. And OSU wouldn't be any more deserving that the Big 12 team either. What a freaking mess. I hate the BCS with about as much passion as I can hate anything related to sports.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 12:48 PM
Ohio State lost to Illinois, and West Virginia lost to South Florida. Oklahoma has the worst loss. I would say that Illinois is probably better than South Florida at this juncture.

Are you saying USF has a better body of work than Illinois or are you saying that Illinois is a better football team right now?

This particular computer ranking has USF ahead of Illinois:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm?loc=interstitialskip

USF has road wins at WVU and Auburn. There 3 losses are vs. the better teams in what USAToday says is the second best conference in the country.

It is close. Close enough that you need to dig deeper to decide between a one loss Ohio State team and a one loss WVU team. I don't think it is fair to say, "Illinois is a better team" than South Florida. Its pretty easy to say they are better "at this juncture" when they just beat the number one team last week. But those first ten Illinois played weren't exibition games. They've lost 3 and have some nice wins. USF has lost 3 games and has some nice wins. The SOS is almost identical. 16 vs. 20.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 01:00 PM
MWM, you seem to be implying that all wins are equal. Or am I wrong? You are constantly mentioning teams that "beat everyone on their schedule". Some schedules are better than others. And while John Smith, the punter on some undefeated team shouldn't be penalized when they don't lose a game why should the school that wants to make a cupcake schedule be rewarded over a team that lost but played a much tougher schedule. And to be honest in the BCS you lose points when you lose. There is a deductor for losses. So Kansas IS being rewarded for playing nobody, THUS FAR.

BTW, Northern Iowa, a division one team is also unbeaten at 10-0. Why are they less deserving than Kansas? They've done what has been asked of themselves, won every game. Same with Hawaii. But nobody that I have seen has suggested that Hawaii or Norther Iowa is more deserving than LSU. Why not? They are unbeaten? If we aren't going to be subjective about KU's schedule or anyone else's, why are we with teams like Northern Iowa?

Unless there is a play-off there has to be some system to get two top teams. I really don't think a bunch of one loss teams is a disaster. It is why we have the BCS and far from rare. People act surprised about it which always surprises me. It is the fabric of college football. Happens years after year. But most people subjectively buy into what the BCS has told them each year.

FIRELEFT
11-16-2007, 01:04 PM
A BCS disaster.

Or a Highlander-style Big 12 face off for a single spot in the championship game.

I hope it does happen. Not just because I'm a Hog fan, maybe it would force a hand in some sort of playoff. I don't care if it's a plus one or what, just something.

LoganBuck
11-16-2007, 01:08 PM
South Florida at this point in the season is in full collapse. They caught Auburn sleeping, and White was out for much of the South Florida game, and WVU still came back. Today Illinois is the better team, a month ago South Florida was.

Computers and polls have always had a problem with adjusting for current performance. I call it the "Michigan State effect", how do you weigh the value of a team when it is hitting on all cylinders, versus when it is in full collapse. To a certain extent you can say the same thing about USC. They have been decimated by injuries, and while still playing good football, are not close to the quality of team that started the season. How do you quantify team strength as it applies to when a team plays another team? If Dixon is out, Oregon may lose two more games. Does that mean that when they beat Michigan they were a four loss team? No, but the computers will say it does.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 01:27 PM
USF has lost 3 in a row and I guess it is easy to call that a full collapse but I don't think it is that easy. They lost @ Rutgers by 3. They lost @ UConn by 7 and then lost to Cincy by 5. Three losses by 15 points to teams that are a combined 22-8 playing in the second ranked conference (USA Today) in the country. Two of those team still have a shot to go to the BCS.

Your comparison was more Ohio State and WVU and which team had the worse loss. USF played WVU before the so called "free fall" began. They were as high as number two in the country at that time.

If you don't want Michigan to lose points when a Dixon less Oregon team loses, why should WVU suffer because USF has gone into a freefall a month and a half later?

Is Illinois better than USF? Who the hell knows. But there body of work is just as impressive as that of the Illini. Pretty evenly matched. If you want to just talk about today that is fine but WVU didn't lose to USF today, it was six weeks ago. If they don't get credit for getting to number 2, how do we give credit to the Illini for beating number one. LSU is number one, not Ohio State.

I agree Michigan should not be penalized for losing to a lesser team when Oregon starts to fail without Dixon but that is sports. All these teams have been hit with injuries. LSU's best defender and possible first pick in the draft has been all banged up this season but since he doesn't touch the ball nobody wants to consider it.

LoganBuck
11-16-2007, 01:45 PM
USF has lost 3 in a row and I guess it is easy to call that a full collapse but I don't think it is that easy. They lost @ Rutgers by 3. They lost @ UConn by 7 and then lost to Cincy by 5. Three losses by 15 points to teams that are a combined 22-8 playing in the second ranked conference (USA Today) in the country. Two of those team still have a shot to go to the BCS.

Your comparison was more Ohio State and WVU and which team had the worse loss. USF played WVU before the so called "free fall" began. They were as high as number two in the country at that time.

If you don't want Michigan to lose points when a Dixon less Oregon team loses, why should WVU suffer because USF has gone into a freefall a month and a half later?

Is Illinois better than USF? Who the hell knows. But there body of work is just as impressive as that of the Illini. Pretty evenly matched. If you want to just talk about today that is fine but WVU didn't lose to USF today, it was six weeks ago. If they don't get credit for getting to number 2, how do we give credit to the Illini for beating number one. LSU is number one, not Ohio State.

I agree Michigan should not be penalized for losing to a lesser team when Oregon starts to fail without Dixon but that is sports. All these teams have been hit with injuries. LSU's best defender and possible first pick in the draft has been all banged up this season but since he doesn't touch the ball nobody wants to consider it.

Illinois is better today than South Florida. My eyes tell me that. South Florida beat an Auburn team that was a little young and way to overconfident. They beat WVU in much the same fashion that we just say Arizona beat Oregon. I never said it was a difference of night and day. I said "probably". You have gotten a little too touchy Maine, slow down before you try painting people into a corner.

My point is that the BCS is very flawed and even though LSU is deservedly the #1, the battle for number two is very ugly. No matter how you argue it, unless Kansas wins out, it will be ugly.

Highlifeman21
11-16-2007, 02:03 PM
Even though Kansas has been beating teams with their offense, should they beat MIZZOU and OU in consecutive weeks, they'll have gone undefeated and would definitely be a legitimate team. Would I wanna see Kansas in the NC? Honestly no, but they'll have earned the spot.

Should Hawaii also go undefeated (and I think they will) do they deserve to get into a BCS game? I really don't think so. The WAC is a horrible football conference, and Hawaii shouldn't be rewarded with a BCS bid for going undefeated in a bad conference, with an even worse non-conference schedule. That being said, Colt Brennan is fun to watch. That kid can flat throw, and I honestly see him making a name for himself in the NFL probably in 3-4 years. I don't think he'd make an immediate impact, but should he find himself in the right situation with a good O line, and some good weapons, Brennan will easily be an above-average NFL QB.

As for LSU... are they really the best team in the country? They are too inconsistent for my tastes, but at the same time, they keep finding themselves at or near the top of the BCS standings. I thought tOSU was one of the better teams in the nation, but their D couldn't figure out The Juice, and their offense doesn't know how to make comebacks due to its conservative nature. I still think tOSU will get a BCS bid, should they be able to get by "that team from up North".

There really just aren't many exciting teams this year. Too much parity. I guess that's a good thing for the BCS, since their system will "work" if you have a bunch of 1 loss teams.

bucksfan2
11-16-2007, 02:06 PM
Here are my thoughts

-LSU is ranekd #1 right now because they were ranked #1 at the begining of the season. Most of this was due to the victory last year over ND.

-Va Tech has not impressed at all this season. You can ask yourself whats the difference between any 2 loss BCS team in the country? I find it ironic that BC beat VT at home, same conference, same record, yet is ranked lower.

-You want to talk about OCC wins, what about Appy St. They probably had the most impressive win this year. I don't see how LSU's win over VT is any better that Appy St or Oregon.

-The BCS title game could be WVU vs Kansas and that would be an outright travesty in my opinion.

-Too much of this season has been based upon perception rather than reality. Is LSU the best 1 loss team in the nation? maybe, however LSU could very easily be the best 3 loss team in the nation.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 02:19 PM
The Big 12 is weak without Oklahoma and Texas.

I just don't get the so and so has taken care of business so they should go comments while at the same time drawing a line between unbeaten teams. All the while complaining about the subjectivity in the rankings.

People want an unbeaten to go because they are unbeaten but don't want another unbeaten because they haven't played anyone. When you point out that number 2 hasn't played anyone it is OK because they have won all their games. Go back to Hawaii and they haven't played anyone. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

People want to give Kansas early credit for their possible win over OU. Well Hawaii still has Boise, a team that beat OU last season in a bowl game. Boise is 9-1 this season.

Easy to say Mizzou is better than Boise. Mizzou is ranked higher and they play in the Big 12 so that makes them better I guess. Thankfully nobody told Boise this last year when they were underdogs to OU in Tempe.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 02:29 PM
Here are my thoughts

-LSU is ranekd #1 right now because they were ranked #1 at the begining of the season. Most of this was due to the victory last year over ND.

-Va Tech has not impressed at all this season. You can ask yourself whats the difference between any 2 loss BCS team in the country? I find it ironic that BC beat VT at home, same conference, same record, yet is ranked lower.

-You want to talk about OCC wins, what about Appy St. They probably had the most impressive win this year. I don't see how LSU's win over VT is any better that Appy St or Oregon.

Boston College lost to Maryland and Florida State. Teams with 9 losses combined. Va Tech lost to BC and LSU, teams with 3 losses combined. Head to head should count but not more than the rest.

If you want to call App State beating Michigan the best OOC win of the season, fine, I'll agree. I was talking about BCS teams but that is fine.

As for Oregon over Michigan that was a good win but Va Tech is ranked higher than Michigan in the polls, the BCS and the computers.

Nobody can claim they have beaten an OOC opponent ranked as high as Virginia Tech. You may not be impressed with Tech but you can't say you are impressed with any team that a high ranked team has beaten OOC. In a year of unimpressive OOC games LSU beat the team with the best ranking.

LoganBuck
11-16-2007, 02:39 PM
Be careful, Boise got clipped by Washington. Everybody thought Washington was going to be decent, but they have not been very good at all. Boise is not the same team that played Oklahoma last year, that team had a senior QB and some other experienced seniors that have moved on.

gonelong
11-16-2007, 02:43 PM
I feel a bit bad that Hawaii can't get anyone to play them. Its not completely their fault their schedule is so light. It sounds to me like they worked hard to get some quaility opponents on the schedule this season, knowing they would have a quality team.

They made inquiries with Oregon State, Washington State University, Mississippi State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and others for the 2007 schedule. For various reasons none of them made their way onto Hawaii's schedule. Hawaii also worked with ESPN to try and set up a game with USC this season, didn't work out either.

GL

Chip R
11-16-2007, 02:47 PM
I feel a bit bad that Hawaii can't get anyone to play them. Its not completely their fault their schedule is so light. It sounds to me like they worked hard to get some quaility opponents on the schedule this season, knowing they would have a quality team.

They made inquiries with Oregon State, Washington State University, Mississippi State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and others for the 2007 schedule. For various reasons none of them made their way onto Hawaii's schedule. Hawaii also worked with ESPN to try and set up a game with USC this season, didn't work out either.

GL


Yeah, no one wants to go to Hawaii and get screwed by their refs.

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2007, 02:51 PM
Would I wanna see Kansas in the NC? Honestly no, but they'll have earned the spot.

This kind of baffles me. Unless you're a Missouri or K-State alum, or a fan of some other Big 12 school, why wouldn't you want to see an unbeaten, from-out-of-nowhere team play for the national championship? It seems like if you're a fan of college football, it would be great to see a school turn it's program into a title contender in such short order.

paintmered
11-16-2007, 02:51 PM
Yeah, no one wants to go to Hawaii and get screwed by their refs.

Or their fans.

registerthis
11-16-2007, 03:00 PM
What a freaking mess. I hate the BCS with about as much passion as I can hate anything related to sports.

I'd say this sums it up pretty well.

the BCS is a crock of you-know-what.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 03:06 PM
I'm just curious, is it the BCS that you guys hate or the lack of a play-off?

The BCS to me does one thing, it allows Ohio State to go play Florida instead of the old system that forced OSU to go play a 7-4 UCLA team in the Rose Bowl. That is it. That makes it good. The lack of a play-off is what I hate.

Highlifeman21
11-16-2007, 03:08 PM
This kind of baffles me. Unless you're a Missouri or K-State alum, or a fan of some other Big 12 school, why wouldn't you want to see an unbeaten, from-out-of-nowhere team play for the national championship? It seems like if you're a fan of college football, it would be great to see a school turn it's program into a title contender in such short order.

I think the parity of NCAAFB has created Kansas.

I wouldn't call them a rags to riches story, but rather best of the worst, for this year. There just aren't powerhouses anymore due to competitive recruiting and a better pool of athletes. Ten years ago, a blue chip prospect may only seem like a 2nd or 3rd tier prospect today. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger and helping to bring the NCAA game to a closer speed of that of the NFL.

I'm a fan of college football, but I also like history and tradition, and seeing Kansas having a chance to make the NC ruins all of that for me. Kansas is a hoops school, not a football school. Next thing you know, Duke will have a good football team.

MWM
11-16-2007, 05:54 PM
MWM, you seem to be implying that all wins are equal.

Never implied that at all. I'm just suggesting that your schedule is your schedule. Nothing a team can do in that year to change it. And if you shcedule what should be good games years in advance, and that winds up not being very good this year, then you're just out of luck. That's what I mean when I say that all a team can do is go out an play who's on their schedule.



Or am I wrong? You are constantly mentioning teams that "beat everyone on their schedule". Some schedules are better than others. And while John Smith, the punter on some undefeated team shouldn't be penalized when they don't lose a game why should the school that wants to make a cupcake schedule be rewarded over a team that lost but played a much tougher schedule. And to be honest in the BCS you lose points when you lose. There is a deductor for losses. So Kansas IS being rewarded for playing nobody, THUS FAR.

BTW, Northern Iowa, a division one team is also unbeaten at 10-0. Why are they less deserving than Kansas? They've done what has been asked of themselves, won every game. Same with Hawaii. But nobody that I have seen has suggested that Hawaii or Norther Iowa is more deserving than LSU. Why not? They are unbeaten? If we aren't going to be subjective about KU's schedule or anyone else's, why are we with teams like Northern Iowa?

Unless there is a play-off there has to be some system to get two top teams. I really don't think a bunch of one loss teams is a disaster. It is why we have the BCS and far from rare. People act surprised about it which always surprises me. It is the fabric of college football. Happens years after year. But most people subjectively buy into what the BCS has told them each year.

The last part is all evidence of how going by "polls" determines who plays for the national title. And no, most people DON'T buy into what the BCS is telling them.

My point is that until teams play on the field, everything else is just speculation. We might think one team is better than another, but it's still subjective. It's based on opinion and looking at "who beat who." There are too many variables to make that a productive exercise. How many times have we seen Team A lose to Team B badly, and beat Team C badly, only to have Team C beat Team B badly.?

I'm not surprised at all. I'm irritated as hell. I hate the back and forth about who's better or more deserving. Let them play it out on the field. Just because one team plays a better schedule does not mean they're better than another team. It's not rational. No matter how strong we are in the opinion of one team being "deserving", it's still opinion. There's no way around that fact. It's not a satisfying solution. Look at what happened to Auburn a few years ago. They were screwed. And there were people saying that year that the BCS worked because the two best teams were USC and Oklahoma. I thought Auburn was much better than Oklahoma. I'm tired of the subjective.

MWM
11-16-2007, 05:55 PM
I'm just curious, is it the BCS that you guys hate or the lack of a play-off?

Huh?

registerthis
11-16-2007, 06:22 PM
I'm just curious, is it the BCS that you guys hate or the lack of a play-off?

I hate both, actually. I hate that the BCS has reduced the college football season to a discussion of strength of schedule ratings, quality wins and some computer formula that no one understands. I hate that it limits the number of teams that can play for the "championship" to two--regardless of how many deserving teams there may be come year's end. I hate that it is inherently biased against good teams that play in weaker conferences, and in favor of so-so teams that play in "power" conferences. I hate the constant lines of BS that the college football powers-that-be feed the fans as to why a playoff would be untenable.

To be fair, I hated the old system too. But the BCS is just a waste, pure and simple. And I'm pretty much going to be unhappy with anything *but* a playoff.

Chip R
11-16-2007, 11:14 PM
Besides the money it brings in - manly for the top bowls - fans like their schools to go to bowl games because they have a shot at finishing the season on a winning note. Of course it doesn't always happen but in the bowl system half the teams go home happy. It's something they can hang their hats on even if they only finished 6-5 and in the middle of the pack in conference. Around here, UC and UK fans are pumped that they are probably going to some decent bowl games and if everything goes right, some major bowl games. Under a playoff system, they probably would be done after their last game of the regular season.

There's also the tradition factor. These teams have been going to bowl games for so long that fans can't fathom a world without bowl games. It'd be as foreign to them as a world without automobiles.

However, this BCS stuff is a mess. Think about it. I'm no Ohio St. fan but they have almost no chance at a BCS title since they lost to Illinois. 1 loss and they are out. There are other teams that only have 1 loss and they are toast. These teams don't get another shot to prove themselves against the so-called top ranked teams. There's no shot that they can get healthy and/or hot at the end of the year and run the table to a title. They are trying to determine a champion by taking the top ranked pair of teams and facing them off against each other. Doesn't matter if they are the actual best teams, they are 1 and 2 and that is that. It'd be like in college basketball they would bypass Selection Sunday and March Madness and just pick North Carolina and UCLA and make that game the championship game. No North Carolina State championship run could happen. There would be no Villanovas because the year they won it they got beat by Georgetown in the regular season twice.

Some believe the regular season would be meaningless if there were playoffs. I don't think it would. It may be less important but the post season would be infinitely more important. The NFL has playoffs and a championship game and interest in the regular season doesn't seem to wane.

I don't think there's an absolute need for FBS to have a playoff system. But if they don't, why not just go back to the old system and let the pollsters determine the champs? If there are split #1s, so be it. If you absolutely have to determine the best team, have a playoff. Otherwise any other way of determining a #1 team is illegitimate.

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 11:17 PM
MWM, not sure how to respond to "huh?". Is that an extremely rude way of saying you don't understand the question?

registerthis, I hear you. I'm a big play-off guy. A lot of folks aren't which sort of surprises me. What I hate most are the reasons given by the college presidents. Bogus. At some point there will be a play-off and after they see how much money it rakes in they are going to look with puzzlement at each other wondering why THEY didn't think of it sooner.

At some point they need to re-work the system. There has to be a way to break D1 down into a smaller group where all the teams are somewhat equal. Hawaii and Boise deserve the same shot to win a college football title that George Mason gets to win the hoops title. And they are never going to get that shot, even if they go 15-0. It will never be good enough to get to number 2. The SOS will never be good enough.

I'm not a BCS guy but I think it beats the pants off the old deal. The Bowl affiliations just made no sense. Having number 1 and number 2 play is better than having 1 play 9 while 2 plays 6. Remember the year Washington and Miami split the title? Those teams should have played. But Washington had to go to the Rose Bowl while Miami played in the Orange. At least the BCS gives you the two best teams when there are obviously two "best" teams.

I think 8 teams for a play-off is the way to go. Champs from the Big East, ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 10 get in automatically. Two wild card teams also go. We figure out how to choose those teams later. Using the current standings we would have:

LSU vs. Virginia with the winner playing WVU-Mizzou winner.

Ohio State vs. Oklahoma winner vs. Kansas-Arizona State winner

MaineRed
11-16-2007, 11:22 PM
Chip why do the bowls have to go away if the top 8 teams are playing in a play-off?

The Motor City Bowl is irrelevant now and would continue to be with a play-off. TCU and Northern Illinois can still go to Detroit and get it on. Same with just about every other bowl. The big bowls could be used for the play-off system. Let the SEC champ play in the Sugar, let the Pac 10 champ play in the Rose, whatever. Games can still be played in those venues just as they are now. Especially the last couple of rounds. I'm sure fans would rather see an OSU game where they can advance rather than some stupid game where the only good is to be able to say you won your last game and got a tan.

It baffles me how bowl games that have no significance on the BCS title game now would have to cease to exist if there were 8 teams playing for the title instead of 2. Nothing changes for the participants in the other 28 bowl games. They can carry on.

Chip R
11-16-2007, 11:40 PM
Chip why do the bowls have to go away if the top 8 teams are playing in a play-off?

The Motor City Bowl is irrelevant now and would continue to be with a play-off. TCU and Northern Illinois can still go to Detroit and get it on. Same with just about every other bowl. The big bowls could be used for the play-off system. Let the SEC champ play in the Sugar, let the Pac 10 champ play in the Rose, whatever. Games can still be played in those venues just as they are now. Especially the last couple of rounds. I'm sure fans would rather see an OSU game where they can advance rather than some stupid game where the only good is to be able to say you won your last game and got a tan.

It baffles me how bowl games that have no significance on the BCS title game now would have to cease to exist if there were 8 teams playing for the title instead of 2. Nothing changes for the participants in the other 28 bowl games. They can carry on.


I didn't say they had to go away. But they would be even more irrelevant than they are now. Who cares about a bowl game if you can't make the playoffs? It'd be college football's version of the NIT. And if no one cares about them, they aren't going to be paying as much money out to the teams involved. And then that's all she wrote for those bowls. Besides, some of these teams that go to these bowls barely break even. You figure in transportation costs, buying up any unused tickets, food and lodging and you're not making a lot of money even after the payout. Alums and boosters now can say they went to a bowl game now and point to that as the end to a successful season. With a playoff system even if they did go to a bowl, alums and boosters are going to say, "Yeah, but you didn't make the playoffs so who cares about a bowl game?"

You could incorporate the major bowls in a playoff system but these bowls are built around these festivals that happen around the new year. You have the Tournament of Roses parade, the Orange Bowl parade, etc. All culminating in a football game. Now imagine the Rose Bowl parade and all the festivities on Jan 1 and the Rose Bowl game a week or 2 later. I have a feeling the Tournament of Roses poobahs aren't going to be really thrilled about that. If they can pull it off, though, more power to them.

MaineRed
11-17-2007, 12:57 AM
How is the Motor City Bowl going to be anymore irrelevant than it is now? All the bowl games but one are played by teams with no shot to win the title. Why would having no shot at the title when there is a play-off change that? The Bowls are the NIT right now. All but one of them.

A play-off system is not going to affect the teams that play in the Liberty Bowl, Texas Bowl, New Orleans Bowl, Gator Bowl, Chick Fill-A Bowl, etc, etc, etc, etc. As I said, carry on. These bowls have survived without national title caliber participants, I don't see why including a few more teams from the top to the title chase would change the outlook of these bowls. The top teams aren't going to those bowls now.

I really don't think the NCAA should be worrying about the Rose parade. More money can be made with a play-off than these bowl games generate. No college football fan would miss an elimination game between Ohio State and Va Tech. But those same schools playing in the Cotton Bowl? I could care less. I might watch, if I have a bet on it. CBS or ABC would probably write the NCAA a blank check for the right to cover such a play-off.

I also think the current bigger bowls could be used. Play the first round on January 1. 4 quarterfinal games. Use the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl for the first round. Now instead of ZERO games that matter out of these four bowl games that tradition won't let us get rid of, all FOUR are relevant. It is a no lose proposition. We could even go back to having the Pac 10 and Big Ten champs play in the Rose Bowl. Winner advances. That would make the freaking Rose Bowl better than it EVER was.

SandyD
11-17-2007, 06:51 AM
You'd be going against the NFL playoffs if you do that.

MaineRed
11-17-2007, 07:56 AM
How do you figure? Under such a proposal there would be 4 teams left after January 1. Currently there are at least 2 teams left after January 1, the BCS Championship participants.
So we are talking about an additional 2 teams that are going to be up against the NFL play-offs.

Besides, nobody said these games would have to be played at the same time as the NFL. The Championship game is ususally played on some weeknight, not Saturday or Sunday afternoons. They could play on Friday or Saturday night (with NFL games on Saturday afternoon).

The opposite the NFL reasoning seems like something the college presidents would say against a play-off. The fact that Bowl games (and there are 30 or so of those) can be played without the worry of the NFL, I'm pretty sure there is a way to pull off a play-off that many more people are going to be interested in than these stupid, irrelevant bowl games.

If the NFL play-offs are the worry then play in December. The whole month is void of any decent college football. There is plenty of time to play what would amount to 7 football games.

SandyD
11-17-2007, 11:18 AM
Personally, I think there's too much emphasis on "championships" in college sports anyway.

But, if you want a playoff, and most people do, have 16 teams. There are 11 Div 1A conference. All conference winners + 5 extra spots for qualifying independents.

Either way, you'd have as much crying over who qualifies for those final spots as you do over who should be 1 & 2 now.

And whatever you do, I think travel is going to be an issue for the fans. Right now, college football fans can budget time/money to travel to one bowl game. With a playoff, you're asking fans of multiple teams to travel to multiple "neutral sites" over a span of 2-3 weeks. Add in weeknight games makes travel even harder.

Personally, I like the fact that a lot of schools get rewarded with an extra game. They're not meaningless to the players, students, fans of those schools.

MaineRed
11-17-2007, 12:12 PM
If they aren't meaningless now, they wouldn't be meaningless with a play-off. I gave the example of TCU and Northern Illinois in the Motor City Bowl. Nobody has even tried to give a reason for why that bowl would be less significant in the future with a play-off than it is now. If the Motor City Bowl is not meaningless now, it wouldn't be with a play-off. Two crappy teams could still get an all expense paid trip to Detroit and feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves while nobody except bettors paid any attention on TV.

There is crying about teams that miss the NCAA basketball tourney and they select 65 teams. That crying beats the daylights out of the crying that would ensue if North Carolina and Kansas were picked to play for the title while excluding everyone else.

I don't like the 16 team idea. That would more than double the games needed to complete an 8 team play-off. One way it would work though would be to play the early rounds on campus and then have the final 4 teams advance to New Years Day games. Then you have the final 2 play somewhere a couple of weeks after that, on a Friday or Saturday night. That way you are only talking extreme travel for two teams.

Most of all I don't get how anyone can think the bowl games, besides the BCS title game have any significance as things stand now. They are like non play-off teams in the NFL getting together for no reason. Would Bengal fans go to Tampa to watch them play Arizona once the season is over and they miss out on a Super Bowl chance? Heck no!

SandyD
11-17-2007, 03:51 PM
I don't think that 2 at large spots are enough to account for independents, good teams in the non-qualifying conferences, and surprises in the conference champs. The "Best" team may not qualify for your field of 8.

The bowl game is an opportunity for exposure for non-qualifying teams, and an opportunity to face an opponent they're not likely to face during the regular season.

MaineRed
11-17-2007, 04:04 PM
I'm just a fan who is throwing out proposals so there are obviously going to be hitches and hang ups.

A conference championship game would be your chance. You have to look at it as an elimination game if you aren't going to be one of the top 2 teams who doesn't automatically qualify.

Look at this year. Lets say every conference has a title game and all the favorites lose. We have Georgia, Michigan, Big 12 team, USC, UConn and Virginia Tech who win their title games and make the play-offs. If we use the BCS standings to nab two wild cards it would be LSU and probably a Big 12 team. That is 6 upsets and we still get the two teams that we would of had in the BCS title game had everything gone to plan under the current system.

How many spots do you need for independants? The only allowed into the mix NOW is Notre Dame. None of the other independants are relevant. Same thing for non qualifying conference teams now. They have no shot now. Hawaii can go 38-0 and they aren't going to be one of the top 2 teams and thus are going to be shut out of the title game.

So you would be open to college basketball axing the March Madness deal and just having UNC and Kansas play in the Hoosier Dome Bowl while all the other teams go on vacation and play games that don't really matter against various competition?

Very few teams that go to bowl games get to play against teams they don't usually play. The big bowls get the big boys while the other bowls match 7th place Big Ten teams vs. 6th place ACC teams. There is nothing riveting about those games. RARELY you get a Boise-Oklahoma game that is the kind of match-up you are talking about. 95% of these bowl games are simply an extenstion of the teams regular season. You look in the mirror and that is usually who you are playing. One bowl game means something to the general college football game. That is it. The rest of the stuff is for the players grandmas to enjoy. 6-5 Cincinnatit playing Western Michigan in Boise doesn't excite me or anyone else.

Johnny Footstool
11-18-2007, 01:52 AM
Bowl games are basically exhibitions. They don't count towards anything except a paycheck for the schools and/or conferences involved.

MaineRed
11-18-2007, 08:04 AM
Well Oklahoma goes down and now the stage is set for OSU fans, the same ones who had us convinced that this wasn't a title worthy team after the loss to Illinois, to make their claim against WVU.

OSU needs Oklahoma to beat the Mizzou-Kansas winner and the Buckeyes can start arguing against the Mountaineers for a spot in the title game.

traderumor
11-18-2007, 08:31 AM
OSU fans had you convinced? Any who might have "convinced" you already had their mind made up before that game. Of course, it is pretty clear now that OSU is just as good as any of the top 5 teams and would be a reasonable choice if it comes down to choosing from one loss teams. WVU probably has the leg up because they lost before the Buckeyes did. Now there's a real compelling way to make the decision, but that will probably be the logic of the voters if it is between those two. One thing that will be telling is if WVU is still ahead of OSU today.

BTW, I thought it was ridiculous to drop Ohio State out of the top 5 after that loss, but showed yet again how unscientific the system really is.

MaineRed
11-18-2007, 08:42 AM
It was clear before yesterday that Ohio State was just as good as any of those teams IMO. But a lot of Buckeye fans were trying to make themselves feel better after the loss to Illinois by saying they weren't a worthy title contender in the first place.

I knew they weren't out it after that loss but quite a few OSU fans wanted to write them off.

If I have to say I'm sorry for it, I will. But I find it interesting. Especially when considering you know these same fans are going to take the Buckeyes side in an argument against some other one loss team, no matter who it is.

A little faith wouldn't hurt in these situations instead of the normal excuses and comments that you knew it all along.

SandyD
11-18-2007, 09:15 AM
64 teams participate in March Madness. You can be pretty sure that the best team in the country is within that field. A lot of teams can aspire to post season play.

Right now, a lot of teams are playing for bowl game berth that aren't on the national radar. Sure they're exhibition, but they are meaningful to the players, students, fans of the schools involved.

As for matchups: Although the matchup might be Big 10 -7 vs ACC - 6, I doubt the actual teams have met much before.

If you have a field of 8 playoffs, many teams hopes will be elimitated early on. You're going to have a lot of teams miffed because they didn't make it, and some might even decline bowl invitations.

Right now, there are 32 bowls, including the NC game, allowing 64 teams to reach post-season play. Sure, the results don't matter much, but there are about 119 teams in this division.

If you hold an 8 team playoff, or even a 16-team playoff, 2/3 of the field won't have anything to play for before the season even starts.

MaineRed
11-18-2007, 09:32 AM
You are not giving any reasons as to why the Motor City Bowl with TCU and Western Michigan couldn't continue. These teams knew before the season started that they weren't playing for a national title. If they had a goal to start the year it was to win their conference. Of course you want to make a bowl game or at least be bowl eligible. But what team wouldn't want that under the current system? Tthey could have 59 bowls, excluding only one team in the process and it would still be a "goal".


As for matchups: Although the matchup might be Big 10 -7 vs ACC - 6, I doubt the actual teams have met much before.

So what? Why not just add another regular season game? Why don't we just have the ACC/Big Ten challenge in football and have it during the regular seasn when the game actually matters for something instead of these backroom deals that "reward" an Iowa for going 6-6. Iowa should have to spend from now until spring practice with their tails between their legs for their joke of a season. But instead they'll probably get a free trip to Orlando. For what? Why do they deserve that over the rest of us deserving some sort of play-off that all other college football divisions have?


If you hold an 8 team playoff, or even a 16-team playoff, 2/3 of the field won't have anything to play for before the season even starts.

Funny but nobody ever takes up the case of those poor division 3, division 2 or former I-AA kids who have NOTHING to play for as soon as the season begins. Maine is I-AA and some years they make the 16 team tourney. Somehow these I-AA teams manage to criss cross the country to each otehrs campuses to play as many as 4 postseason games. But of course we can't expect the big budget schools to pull this off. No way! Other years Maine barely wins a game. What are they playing for? Its football. Someone wants to line up an play em, they play. The same exact thing the kids at Iowa would do even if there was no bowl game in their future. Look at a good I-AA team that just misses their play-off. No bowl game to fall back on. You either won your last regular season game and mised the play-offs or you won the whole enchilada. Otherwise there was no last chance to win your last game. You just had to deal with it.

There used to be like 10 bowl games. Now we have over 30. It has become an absolute joke and it IMO is the last reason there should be no play-off.

Of course there would be teams upset. But there are teams upset now. At least a play-off brings together the top 8 or 16 instead of just the top 2. I'm sure the team that ends number 9 would welcome their shot to get to number 8 over the the chance they would of had under the current system to get to number 2.

You use complaining as a reason this should't be done in defense of a system that creates more complaining than about anything else in sports. Do you see any irony in that?

Chip R
11-18-2007, 09:41 AM
If you hold an 8 team playoff, or even a 16-team playoff, 2/3 of the field won't have anything to play for before the season even starts.


There's 200 or so teams that play Division 1 basketball. Since only 64 teams make the tournament, that's about 3/4 or the teams that are going to be on the outside looking in. Even in high school not everybody makes the playoffs. It'd be nice if you could rig it so you have a playoff where everybody gets in but it's just not feasable.

If there were playoffs now, at the beginning of the season Kansas wold have been one of those teams that didn't have anything to play for. Nobody expected them to do anything and they could possibly play for the BCS championship.

Of course all this talk about playofs is just talk. The Big 10 won't allow it. Plus you'd have to deal with Notre Dame too. I'm guessing the next thing will be one more game from the top 2 rated teams after the bowls.

SandyD
11-18-2007, 11:34 AM
Football doesn't lend itself to "tournament" play. You can't bring 4 football teams together, and play a round robin over a weekend. You can't play a best of 3. Basketball, baseball, most (probably all) other NCAA sports do. At least tournament or meet play.

The other bowls would probably continue for a while, but I think they'd decline over time. Some would probably fold. To be honest, I find bowl games that "don't mean anything" more enjoyable than regular season play. Because they can just go out and have fun.

I've given in to the fact that there will eventually be a playoff. I'm just afraid of the format it will take. In the interest of fairness to the Hawaiis, Boise States, Tulanes, I think ALL conference champs should be automatic qualifiers or NONE.

As for Kansas, I imagine the coaches and players could see they had a shot at a good season.

Chip, as for basketball, maybe 3/4 or so of the teams are on the outside looking in when the field of 64 is announced, but I imagine at least half of the teams feel that have a shot of making that field ... even late in the season. But what if the field were 16, rather than 64? That's closer to the 8-team playoff in football. Less than 10%.

MaineRed
11-18-2007, 12:22 PM
I-AA manages a 16 team play-off. And it isn't a round robin. You win you advance to next week. Pretty simple actually. An these are schools without big travel budgets. Youngstown State, Georgia Southern, App State, New Hampshire, James Madison, etc, etc.

There isn't a reason in the world they can do it at this level and then can't pull it off at the top level because it isn't conducive. If football wasn't conducive to tourney play than why does every other level of football in the WORLD have a tournament to determine a champ? What is it about schools with bigger names that makes them unable to manage such an affair?

SandyD
11-18-2007, 12:43 PM
Their play off starts now ... next weekend, I believe. Only half the teams have to travel, since they play in home stadiums I believe. They'll be done before Christmas.

They can pull it off. Forget the bowls. Have at least 16 teams, so all conference champs can be represented. Maybe force the conferences to play by the same rules ... same size, same methods of determining a champ.

It's not what I want, but it can be done.

MaineRed
11-18-2007, 12:47 PM
Right, they start now. Coincides with the Buckeyes anual 60 day hibernation til their next game.

Fun, fun, fun.

Like I said, I am fine with having early rounds of a play-off at the better teams home stadium. Play it down til the end then have the big shin dig in early January. Whatever. Not saying there is only one right way to do it. They can make it regional for all I care. Big Ten and Big East play off, SEC and ACC. Whatever. Just include more than two freaking teams. And by that I don't mean include 64 teams and let them play their least important game of the season.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 05:52 PM
It looks like LSU will escape again today due in thanks to some help from the refs, especially on that bogus PI call on the 2-pt conversion. LSU is not the #1 team in the country. Their defense is overrated and their QB Matt Flynn is horrible. A balanced team will beat them IMO. I think Oregon would have crushed them and even OSU will if they meet.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:06 PM
28-21 Arky with 5:06 remaining. This is the part where LSU's opponent always chokes.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:13 PM
Lester Miles gets lucky again. He throws a high risk swing pass on 4th and 1 and the Arky player misses a tackle which would have won the game for Arky.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:16 PM
28-21 Arky with 1:01 left. LSU ball 4th and goal at the 2.

Degenerate39
11-23-2007, 06:20 PM
28-21 Arky with 1:01 left. LSU ball 4th and goal at the 2.

D Fence

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:21 PM
TD LSwho.

Unbelievable.

LSU will lose. They are an average team.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:22 PM
LSwho is very average.

Degenerate39
11-23-2007, 06:22 PM
LSU will lose. They are an average team.

I hope and pray LSU loses

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:27 PM
Nutt is an awful coach. Arky returns the kickoff to the 50 with 50 seconds left and he runs the damn ball. Idiot.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:30 PM
Way to go Houston Nutt. Are you throwing the game? 1st and ten at the 50 with one timeouts and 49 seconds left and you play not to lose? No wonder you're about get fired, you're an awful coach.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:35 PM
doublepost

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:39 PM
These announcers are a disgrace to college football. Rooting for LSwho like that. That's awful. The SEC refs are making sure LSwho gets into the NC game. Oh well, Ohio State or West Virginia will kill them.

MWM
11-23-2007, 06:43 PM
These announcers are a disgrace to college football. Rooting for LSwho like that. That's awful. The SEC refs are making sure LSwho gets into the NC game. Oh well, Ohio State or West Virginia will kill them.


Yeah, I watched the whole game and thought to myself that I found a new worst annoucer. Danielson is terrible.

My overall takeaway on this game was similar to what a lot of folks thought about OSU most of the year: "There's got to be someone better than this, right? Is this really the best team in the country?" If they are, this is surely a down year for college football. LSU is good, but they're far from a great team. They continue to get incredibly lucky.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:47 PM
Yeah, I watched the whole game and thought to myself that I found a new worst annoucer. Danielson is terrible.

My overall takeaway on this game was similar to what a lot of folks thought about OSU most of the year: "There's got to be someone better than this, right? Is this really the best team in the country?" If they are, this is surely a down year for college football. LSU is good, but they're far from a great team. They continue to get incredibly lucky.

I hope OSU (or whoever gets into the NC) beat the living crap out of LSU. I used to strongly dislike OSU but I've really come around on them and I will be a big OSU fan if they play LSU. LSU is my least favorite football team of all-time.

I respect the heck out of Michigan football but if they hire that arrogant Les Miles then I will lose all respect for Michigan.

RBA
11-23-2007, 06:49 PM
TOUCHDOWN!

MWM
11-23-2007, 06:49 PM
Oh yeah, what in the world was Houston Nutt thinkin when they had the ball at the 50 yard line with 50 seconds left to play. He needed about 25 yards for a FG attempt and had a TO. So he decides that two of his first three plays will be hand offs up the middle. One of the worst clock management jobs I've seen this year.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:49 PM
LSU's defense is so great. It's clearly the best defense of all-time (haha, dumb SEC announcers).

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 06:52 PM
Matt Flynn is the worst QB on a so called #1 team that I have ever seen.

RBA
11-23-2007, 06:54 PM
TOUCHDOWN!!

RBA
11-23-2007, 07:01 PM
TOUCHDOWN!!!

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 07:02 PM
50-42 Arkansas in 3rd OT.

RBA
11-23-2007, 07:02 PM
2 PTS GOOD!

RBA
11-23-2007, 07:04 PM
TOUCHDOWN!!!!

RBA
11-23-2007, 07:06 PM
LSU proves they aren't the number 1 team.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 07:06 PM
WOOOOHHHIOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LES MILES! CRYBABY!

ARE the announcers crying yet?!?!?!? HAHAHA

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 07:07 PM
I was wrong - Darren McFadden should win the heisman!

guttle11
11-23-2007, 07:09 PM
Woohoo, the back window is open!

GO UConn!
Go Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game!

KronoRed
11-23-2007, 07:09 PM
LSU proves they aren't the number 1 team.

Kansas might be ;)

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 07:13 PM
Oregon, OSU, USC, Florida (if they played again), Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and Georgia would all beat LSU by 10+ points. LSU is very average.

KronoRed
11-23-2007, 07:14 PM
What's the record for number of teams being ranked #1 during a season? we have to be close to it.

OnBaseMachine
11-23-2007, 07:15 PM
What's the record for number of teams being ranked #1 during a season? we have to be close to it.

How about all the different #2 teams that have lost?!?

Caveat Emperor
11-23-2007, 07:17 PM
Just my completely uneducated opinion, but McFadden just won the Heisman tonight.

Degenerate39
11-23-2007, 07:20 PM
If WVU beats UConn then they should be in the National Title game

joshnky
11-23-2007, 07:20 PM
Is LSU the first team to lose twice in the same season as #1?

They certainly are the first #1 team to lose twice in triple overtime.

joshnky
11-23-2007, 07:23 PM
Too bad Dennis Dixon got hurt. They were a true great team. Now we're left with a mediocre championship game.

I do think that if Pat White and Slaton learn to hold onto the ball, they'll roll through the rest of the season and the championship.

MWM
11-23-2007, 07:36 PM
Oregon, OSU, USC, Florida (if they played again), Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and Georgia would all beat LSU by 10+ points. LSU is very average.

I don't know about that. LSU is capable of losing to anyone of those teams. But they're also capable of beating any one of them as well. They're a super talented team, but I think they're poorly coached. They're a high volatility team. They're capable of beating anyone and they're capable of losing to just about any one on any given game.

I hope Michigan is paying attention.

MWM
11-23-2007, 07:38 PM
If WVU beats UConn then they should be in the National Title game

But if Mizzou wins out, then they should as well, along with OSU. All three of those teams are equally "deserving." That's the insanity of this system. When you have 3 equally deserving teams, you're forced into some ridiculously subjective analyzing of every single little detail of every game to see if something favors one team over another. It's silly. If they get down to three 1 loss teams, 1 team is going to get screwed. Just like Auburn got screwed a few years back.

Reds Freak
11-23-2007, 07:39 PM
Nobody likes the BCS system but as much as we complain about it, this has been one of the most fun and memorable college football seasons in a long time. Starting about week 5 of the season, there have been a number of games with huge national title implications. While every team is flawed and it might be a mediocre championship game, it sure has been a fun few weeks and we still have a long way to go in sorting the whole thing out. The bowl season overall should be filled with great games..

Caveat Emperor
11-23-2007, 07:47 PM
Nobody likes the BCS system but as much as we complain about it, this has been one of the most fun and memorable college football seasons in a long time.

Yup.

And then it gets ruined right at the end, when we're left with probably somewhere between 5-10 teams that could legitimately claim they should be playing for the national title. All but two of them are going to get screwed.

MWM
11-23-2007, 07:52 PM
Yup.

And then it gets ruined right at the end, when we're left with probably somewhere between 5-10 teams that could legitimately claim they should be playing for the national title. All but two of them are going to get screwed.

Exactly. Heck, I think USC as they're playing right now might be the best team out there. No matter how you slice it, it's not likely to be a very highly anticipated National Championship game. It's going to be either OSU - WVU, WVU - Big 12 team, or OSU - Big 12 team. Not to many people outside of the fans of those teams are going to care too much.

Reds Freak
11-23-2007, 08:07 PM
It's going to be either OSU - WVU, WVU - Big 12 team, or OSU - Big 12 team. Not to many people outside of the fans of those teams are going to care too much.

Isn't this always the case especially in college football? There are always exceptions, but most championship games in any sport, the only people who really care are the fans of the teams. Unless it's a Boston/NY or New England/Indy type matchup, no one really cares outside of the fans of the teams. Were people all over the country really dying to see Ohio State/Florida last year?

RedsBaron
11-23-2007, 09:25 PM
If WVU beats UConn then they should be in the National Title game

WVU will also have to beat Pitt. As this season keeps demonstrating, nothing is certain, but I really like WVU's chances now of making the BCS title game, probably against the Big 12 champion.

LoganBuck
11-23-2007, 09:31 PM
Isn't this always the case especially in college football? There are always exceptions, but most championship games in any sport, the only people who really care are the fans of the teams. Unless it's a Boston/NY or New England/Indy type matchup, no one really cares outside of the fans of the teams. Were people all over the country really dying to see Ohio State/Florida last year?

Depends on the names and the faces. I think Ohio State - Michigan last year had the most viewers for a college football game since the Notre Dame/Florida State game in 93. I really wanted to watch Texas/USC two years ago, and it lived up to the hype.

George Foster
11-23-2007, 11:29 PM
Exactly. Heck, I think USC as they're playing right now might be the best team out there. No matter how you slice it, it's not likely to be a very highly anticipated National Championship game. It's going to be either OSU - WVU, WVU - Big 12 team, or OSU - Big 12 team. Not to many people outside of the fans of those teams are going to care too much.

OSU still has a chance. Even if Kansas beats Mizz, they could lose to Oklahoma and OSU is playing West Virgina.

If both Kansas and West Virgina lose, OSU is definitely in the big game playing God knows who.

Being an SEC guy it's pretty tough to see LSU out of it, considering they lost both of their games in 3OT's. However, you got to beat Arkansas at home. No excuses. LSU did not show up in the 1st half.

If Kansas beats Mizz, then loses to Oklahoma, and West Virgina loses to UConn....would Kansas still get the "nod" at the national championship game?

guttle11
11-23-2007, 11:41 PM
If Kansas beats Mizz, then loses to Oklahoma, and West Virgina loses to UConn....would Kansas still get the "nod" at the national championship game?

If it didn't happen last year with OSU/Michigan, it's never happening. Add in the Nebraska mess from several years ago, and I doubt you'll see a team that didn't win its conference/last game playing for the title ever again, either. You would probably see either USC, LSU, Oklahoma, or Georgia in the game.

KronoRed
11-23-2007, 11:46 PM
Boy I have to say I actually have come to like the BCS, I hated with a passion the old system of conference champs being locked into bowl games.

Short of a playoff, that we will NEVER have, the bcs rocks :D

OnBaseMachine
11-24-2007, 12:12 AM
The Hawaii-Boise State has been very entertaining. I love watching WAC football, especially Hawaii. Hawaii has yet to the run the ball all night and we're in the 4th quarter. Not once with the RB. Colt Brennan has throw for 456 yards and 5 TD's through 3 quarters. Hawaii should get a BCS bowl bid IMO if they hang on to beat Boise State tonight and then beat Washington next Saturday.

Super_Barry11
11-24-2007, 12:14 AM
The Hawaii-Boise State has been very entertaining. I love watching WAC football, especially Hawaii. Hawaii has yet to the run the ball all night and we're in the 4th quarter. Not once with the RB. Colt Brennan has throw for 456 yards and 5 TD's through 3 quarters. Hawaii should get a BCS bowl bid IMO if they hang on to beat Boise State tonight and then beat Washington next Saturday.


Eat
Spam
Potato
Nation

:D

Yeah Hawaii!!!

OnBaseMachine
11-24-2007, 12:17 AM
If I were a highly rated QB or WR I would love to play for Hawaii. June Junes is a great coach, they throw the ball 70 times a game, and Hawaii has to be the most beautiful place in the US.

Johnny Footstool
11-24-2007, 03:12 AM
The BCS runs through Kansas City this year. Who woulda thunk it?

Look for me during the broadcast tonight. I'll be the guy in the Jayhawks sweatshirt holding an "I Heart Paige Laurie" sign.

GAC
11-24-2007, 04:34 AM
I was in Columbus yesterday - yeah, my wife talked me into taking her shopping/out to eat - and we were at the Polaris mall. I could see I wasn't the only husband dragged into it either. As the women were hitting the sales, men were huddled around every TV set they could find watching the LSU-Arkansas game. :lol:

I picked Arkansas to win this game simply because LSU's defense is simply terrible. When they gave up 450+ total yards to Ol' Miss, right then and there I knew this was not a #1 team. They were "chompin' at their bits", hoping and praying for an OSU loss.

What a screwy year this has been. When you make #1, somehow you find a way to play like #2 (if you know what I mean). Being "crowned" #1 is almost like being cursed.

And why is this loss kinda sweet for me? Nothing against LSU, the SEC, our their fans. I think they are the better conference right now. But when OSU was #1, all I heard from ESPN and all the "experts", was how they didn't deserve to be there, and that somehow LSU was the "true" #1.

No team with two losses has ever played in the national title game; but again, what a topsy turvy year this has been.

Who should be in the NC game? Heck I don't know! Flip a coin. Whichever team reaches No. 1, it'll be the fourth top-ranked team in this season of instability. The last season with four No. 1s was 1997. Right now, IMO, it should be WVU and the winner of today's Kansas-Missouri game. But if the winner of that game gets beat next week by OKlahoma, then isn't the pretty obvious choice then OSU?

And what happens if Connecticut somehow happens to beat WVU? On paper one could say it ain't gonna happen - I think the Huskies are going to have a hard time with QB White and the option-attack. Huskie coach Edsall plays a conservative approach (Committed to the run, pass efficiency, no turnovers). They aren't flashy. It SHOULD be an easy win for the Mountaineers at home. I said SHOULD. ;)

That lone OSU loss to Illinois stings even more right now. Damn!

FIRELEFT
11-24-2007, 11:15 AM
What happens when LSU gets beat by Arkansas.(it's my dream, don't wake me up yet)
Am I awake or still dreaming:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumb up::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

pahster
11-25-2007, 09:57 AM
The BCS runs through Kansas City this year. Who woulda thunk it?

Look for me during the broadcast tonight. I'll be the guy in the Jayhawks sweatshirt holding an "I Heart Paige Laurie" sign.

Mmmm... "Paige Arena..."

GAC
11-25-2007, 10:10 AM
Can Oklahoma do it again? They beat Missouri in October 41-31.

All I know is, that as a Buckeye fan, on Dec 1st I'm gonna take the "S" out of OSU.....

http://www.soonerclothes.com/images/go_sooners.gif

http://www.collegelogogifts.com/members/678755/uploaded/Oklahoma_Logo.jpg



I don't think WVU, at home, is going to have a bit of trouble with Pitt next week.

sonny
11-25-2007, 10:18 AM
BOOMER SOONERS!!!!!

goreds2
11-25-2007, 10:42 AM
Boy I have to say I actually have come to like the BCS, I hated with a passion the old system of conference champs being locked into bowl games.

Short of a playoff, that we will NEVER have, the bcs rocks :D

Yes, the one positive concerning the BCS is that almost EVERY regular season game is like a playoff game.

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2007, 03:54 PM
LSU is still ranked in the top 5 despite losing to two unranked teams? Wow. LSU drops four spots with a loss to unranked Arkansas and ASU drops SEVEN spots after losing to top ten USC. These clueless pollsters are ruining college football.

guttle11
11-25-2007, 03:56 PM
LSU is still ranked in the top 5 despite losing to two unranked teams? Wow. LSU drops four spots with a loss to unranked Arkansas and ASU drops SEVEN spots after losing to top ten USC. These idiot pollsters are ruining college football.

That's the AP poll, which I don't think is affiliated with the BCS anymore, so it doesn't matter. LSU is 7th in the coaches poll.

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2007, 04:05 PM
More hilarious observations:

8-4 Auburn is ranked yet 9-3 South Florida isn't despite South Florida beating Auburn AND having one less loss. Way to go guys, that makes sense.

MaineRed
11-25-2007, 04:15 PM
Easy to say Arkansas and Kentucky are "unranked". But in reality Arkansas is ranked 26th in the AP poll while Kentucky is 30th. Plenty of people are in fact ranking them. They just aren't in the top 25.

Would LSU be less deserving of dropping if Arkansas had been ranked one spot higher in the polls this week and been officially "ranked"?

MaineRed
11-25-2007, 04:16 PM
South Florida is 25th. Auburn is 23rd.

Auburn is ahead of USF for the same reason OSU is ahead of Illinois. The ranking isn't about one head to head match-up and it isn't standings.

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2007, 04:24 PM
Easy to say Arkansas and Kentucky are "unranked". But in reality Arkansas is ranked 26th in the AP poll while Kentucky is 30th. Plenty of people are in fact ranking them. They just aren't in the top 25.

Would LSU be less deserving of dropping if Arkansas had been ranked one spot higher in the polls this week and been officially "ranked"?

Kentucky has five losses so the fact that they are 30th makes these polls even more embarrassing. Arkansas is 8-4 with four of those wins coming against Troy (not bad), but the other three are North Texas, UT-Chattanooga, and Florida International.

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2007, 04:26 PM
South Florida is 25th. Auburn is 23rd.

Auburn is ahead of USF for the same reason OSU is ahead of Illinois. The ranking isn't about one head to head match-up and it isn't standings.

Coaches poll has Auburn 21 and South Florida unranked. South Florida is a better team than Auburn, so South Florida should be ranked higher than Auburn.

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2007, 04:39 PM
At least the bCS got it right. USF is 21 while Auburn is 24.

MaineRed
11-25-2007, 04:42 PM
41-19. That is the combined record of the five teams that beat Kentucky. And look at the other teams down around them, 4 loss Michigan, 4 loss Oregon State, Air Force, Tulsa, a 9-3UConn team that was 5-0 with its best win being 4-7 Pitt. Now that is pretty bad.

Kentucky is actually 31st in the polls among teams getting votes. If not them, who belongs there?

Sorry for the confusion on the polls, I was only looking at the AP poll.

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2007, 04:46 PM
41-19. That is the combined record of the five teams that beat Kentucky. And look at the other teams down around them, 4 loss Michigan, 4 loss Oregon State, Air Force, Tulsa, a 9-3UConn team that was 5-0 with its best win being 4-7 Pitt. Now that is pretty bad.

Kentucky is actually 31st in the polls among teams getting votes. If not them, who belongs there?

Sorry for the confusion on the polls, I was only looking at the AP poll.

Who belongs there? Teams that haven't lost five games.

Kentucky lost to 6-6 South Carolina and 7-5 Mississippi State. Three of UK's wins were against Eastern Kentucky, Kent State, and Florida Atlantic.

Spring~Fields
11-25-2007, 04:56 PM
Can Oklahoma do it again? They beat Missouri in October 41-31.

All I know is, that as a Buckeye fan, on Dec 1st I'm gonna take the "S" out of OSU.....

http://www.soonerclothes.com/images/go_sooners.gif

http://www.collegelogogifts.com/members/678755/uploaded/Oklahoma_Logo.jpg



I don't think WVU, at home, is going to have a bit of trouble with Pitt next week.

Yes sir, forget them Buckeyes,

We're big time Oklahoma fans now. ;)

LoganBuck
11-25-2007, 05:02 PM
Boomer Sooner Baby!

MaineRed
11-25-2007, 05:23 PM
Who belongs there? Teams that haven't lost five games.


Well I asked you who those teams were. These rankings aren't standings. Not all wins and all losses are equal.

I'm not really here to defend Kentucky but there are good losses and bad losses and Kentucky really doesn't have any bad losses. Sure South Carolina is 6-6 but they were 5-1 when Kentucky went down there to play them and their only loss to that point was to LSU. All the other teams had pretty good seasons.

Kentucky beat LSU and played a tough game with Florida the following week. But they lost the bookend games to SC and MSU.

I'm not a Kentucky fan but think it is possible they were looking ahead when they went to Columbia and then they had the obvious letdown the week after playing LSU and Florida back to back.

Kentucky is the best 7-5 football team in America, I dare say.

joshnky
11-25-2007, 07:19 PM
Who really cares about the polls outside of the top five or ten teams? If you get upset about something so meaningless you must lead a very angry life.

GAC
11-25-2007, 08:53 PM
Talk about a "land of confusion" (from ESPN)....


Perhaps for the first time all season, the national championship race can be explained very simply.

If No. 1 Missouri (vs. Oklahoma) and No. 2 West Virginia (vs. Pittsburgh) both win on Saturday, they will play each other for the BCS title. If one of them loses, No. 3 Ohio State will slide into the national championship game. If Missouri and West Virginia both lose, a two-loss team will probably meet the Buckeyes in New Orleans for all the marbles.

It seems unlikely that West Virginia will lose at home against Pitt, but if it happens, choosing which two-loss team belongs in the national title game will be a difficult assignment for the voters.

No. 4 Georgia is the highest-ranked twice-beaten team in the standings this week, but that might change next week if it matters who's atop the two-loss heap. Because the Bulldogs didn't win their division of the SEC, it's doubtful voters would put them into a BCS championship slot, especially if another two-loss team (LSU) emerges as the conference champion.

Even though LSU is currently ranked behind Virginia Tech, the Tigers would likely move ahead of the Hokies (only if the No. 2 BCS spot is open) because of their 41-point win against them in September. If Tennessee wins the SEC, Tech might be able to sneak into the picture, assuming it wins the ACC title.

Oklahoma could also make a case after knocking off top-ranked Missouri. USC, however, seems to have way too far to climb with only a game against unranked UCLA left on the schedule.

Obviously, there's a one-loss team that hasn't yet been mentioned. Kansas sits at No. 5 in this week's BCS standings, but the Jayhawks are also a long shot, since they have neither a division title nor a win over any team currently ranked in the top 25.

My best guess: If Missouri and West Virginia both lose on Saturday, LSU backs into the title game with a win in the SEC championship.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-25-2007, 11:38 PM
Coaches poll has Auburn 21 and South Florida unranked. South Florida is a better team than Auburn, so South Florida should be ranked higher than Auburn.
How do you decide who is better, I don't think any of us know enough about the talent of these two teams to decide who is the better team. All you can do is look at the body of work and make a decision. Even a head to head matchup only says who was better on that given day. If USF played Auburn twice at home and twice on the road and won 3 of 4 then I would consider them to be the better team.

guttle11
11-25-2007, 11:41 PM
Kentucky is the best 7-5 football team in America, I dare say.

That's quite the accomplishment.

MaineRed
11-25-2007, 11:46 PM
That's quite the accomplishment.

It really is amazing how you take everything about that isn't about the Big Ten as some big slap in the face. Nobody said it was any accomplisment but it helps explain why they are recieving votes in the polls which is what the discussion was about.

Thanks for being such an asset to the discussion.


How do you decide who is better, I don't think any of us know enough about the talent of these two teams to decide who is the better team. All you can do is look at the body of work and make a decision. Even a head to head matchup only says who was better on that given day. If USF played Auburn twice at home and twice on the road and won 3 of 4 then I would consider them to be the better team.

Well said.

guttle11
11-25-2007, 11:58 PM
It really is amazing how you take everything about that isn't about the Big Ten as some big slap in the face. Nobody said it was any accomplisment but it helps explain why they are recieving votes in the polls which is what the discussion was about.

Here's the point: What does them being the "best 7-5 team in America" (a completely inane point to make in its own right) have anything to do with them getting votes? They're getting votes because they beat an overrated LSU team that has been more lucky than good all year long. People love LSU, so beating them means people will overrate you.

MaineRed
11-26-2007, 12:13 AM
It has everything to do with why they are getting votes. When you get down to the 25th ranked team you have to look hard to separate the teams. Some people award votes based on more than a teams record, some pollsters actually vote on how good they think a team is. Kentucky lined up with 3 of the top 14 teams in the country and they went toe to toe with all 3.

Kentucky did beat LSU, which is a helluva win. LSU has more really good wins than anyone in America. They have two wins over top ten teams. Nobody can say that. They were 5-1 vs. the BCS top 30 heading into the last game. Call them what you want, they were winning games and they had the most impressive resume until the loss to Arkansas. I don't think many would agree they were overrated coming into that game.

Going back to Kentucky, I don't think any strong case can be made for other teams being ranked where they are. Sure the LSU wins helps. When the teams you are being compared to have zero significant wins and you one of the best wins of any team, it helps.

Are we supposed to just void the LSU win because they annoy you? Is that how it works?

guttle11
11-26-2007, 12:29 AM
You make good points here, but I have to disagree.

They were overrated, but they were deserving of the ranking they had based on other teams losing. They've been less than stellar since the VT win. I don't think they're as good as USC, Georgia, Missouri, WVU, OSU, Florida, Oklahoma, and possibly even VT at this point in the year. They've lost to two extremely average teams and have nearly been beaten by two others. They're best road win is a toss-up between Alabama and Mississippi State, but it's hard to argue that MSU is a completely different team at this point.

The only thing that annoys me about this season is the overreactions to the team you beat's ranking. Something like 10 top 5 teams lost to unranked opponents this year. What makes Kentucky's victory any more impressive than anyone else's? Is a victory over LSU really more impressive than a victory over Boston College or Texas? Not to me. Not this year. This year, more than any I can remember, all wins are pretty darn equal. You have to go beyond the scores and look at how teams win, week in and week out.

George Foster
11-26-2007, 12:52 AM
Talk about a "land of confusion" (from ESPN)....


Perhaps for the first time all season, the national championship race can be explained very simply.

If No. 1 Missouri (vs. Oklahoma) and No. 2 West Virginia (vs. Pittsburgh) both win on Saturday, they will play each other for the BCS title. If one of them loses, No. 3 Ohio State will slide into the national championship game. If Missouri and West Virginia both lose, a two-loss team will probably meet the Buckeyes in New Orleans for all the marbles.

It seems unlikely that West Virginia will lose at home against Pitt, but if it happens, choosing which two-loss team belongs in the national title game will be a difficult assignment for the voters.

No. 4 Georgia is the highest-ranked twice-beaten team in the standings this week, but that might change next week if it matters who's atop the two-loss heap. Because the Bulldogs didn't win their division of the SEC, it's doubtful voters would put them into a BCS championship slot, especially if another two-loss team (LSU) emerges as the conference champion.

Even though LSU is currently ranked behind Virginia Tech, the Tigers would likely move ahead of the Hokies (only if the No. 2 BCS spot is open) because of their 41-point win against them in September. If Tennessee wins the SEC, Tech might be able to sneak into the picture, assuming it wins the ACC title.

Oklahoma could also make a case after knocking off top-ranked Missouri. USC, however, seems to have way too far to climb with only a game against unranked UCLA left on the schedule.

Obviously, there's a one-loss team that hasn't yet been mentioned. Kansas sits at No. 5 in this week's BCS standings, but the Jayhawks are also a long shot, since they have neither a division title nor a win over any team currently ranked in the top 25.

My best guess: If Missouri and West Virginia both lose on Saturday, LSU backs into the title game with a win in the SEC championship.

I was under the impression that "voting" has nothing to do with who is in the BCS national championship game. I thought the numbers were put in the computer and it spits out the decision.
Am I wrong? I thought that is why there is a seperate BCS poll not associated with the AP or coaches poll.

MaineRed
11-26-2007, 07:23 AM
The Harris Poll and the USA Today poll are part of the BCS rankings. They are two pieces of info that are pumped into the computer. The AP Poll has nothing to do with the BCS.


They've lost to two extremely average teams and have nearly been beaten by two others.

Nearly everyone can say they were nearly beaten by someone not as good as them. And the same can be said to losing to "average" teams. The teams that you claim are better have most lost to average teams. Oklahoma lost to Colorado. Boston College lost to both FSU and Maryland. Texas lost to Kansas State. USC lost to Stanford. West Virginia lost to USF. Ohio State lost to a team that was beaten by Iowa. Illinois isn't as good as the upset over OSU makes people think they are IMO. Georgia narrowly beat Vandy and Troy.


This year, more than any I can remember, all wins are pretty darn equal.

This doesn't seem to be how you look at things when talking about LSU. You want to say all wins are equal but when somebody wins over LSU it is proof that LSU isn't that good?

I think it is easy to say all wins are created equal when the team you are criticizing has more good wins than any other team in the land. If you want to critique LSU for losing, go ahead. They lost. But the only thing that gives OSU, Mizzou and WVU a better resume is the one in the L column instead of the 2 LSU has.

OK, they have no big road wins. Who does? Who did OSU beat on the road this year? A Michigan that is hanging out in the also recieving votes section of the AP poll with both Arkansas and Kentucky? Put this haven't beaten anyone on the road argument to use with the Buckeyes.

You are criticizing LSU for something the other top teams really haven't done either.

bucksfan2
11-26-2007, 10:39 AM
I watched most of the LSU Arkansas game. I also looked at LSU's schedule as thought that would be the game they would lose. I just thought that it would be the classic look ahead game against a team with a good running game. But there were seveal things that I saw that made an impression on me.
-LSU may have the most talent in the nation but that didn't help them win against Arkansas.
-Les Miles is a horriable game coach. His use of timeouts was down right awful. In a big game situation that counts.
-Did either coach study much film. There were several times in the game when the announcer said well such and such is in at fullback which means they are going to throw the ball to him. More often than not it happened.
-LSU lost to a team whose best offensive attack was without a QB.
-LSU's vaunted defense gave up quite a few points in reguation. I guess they wern't that good.


Also watch a bit of the Missouri Kansas game and came out of the game wondering was Missouri that good or was Kansas just not that good. Kansas is probably a top 5 Big 12 team but not having to play Oklahoma or Texas in a year is a huge advantage. Its a good thing they lost because they don't have the talent to play with the big boys.

LoganBuck
11-26-2007, 12:42 PM
A Las Vegas bookmaker was on with Cowherd today. He says that Oklahoma is a 3.5 pt favorite versus Missouri. Cowherd bought that, and then asked what kind of spread an Ohio State/West Virginia game might have. The bookie said Ohio State +6, Cowherd was dumbfounded, he was actually caught off guard. He had spent all morning ripping Ohio State about "backing in", and then his "source for unbiased information" surprised him.

MaineRed
11-26-2007, 12:48 PM
Why was he caught off guard that the team he was ripping would be a 6 point underdog?

I missed the part you are talking about but Cowherd was going on and on about how OSU will get killed by a spread offense. Not sure why he would be surprised by WVU being a 6 point favorite.

LoganBuck
11-26-2007, 01:04 PM
Why was he caught off guard that the team he was ripping would be a 6 point underdog?

I missed the part you are talking about but Cowherd was going on and on about how OSU will get killed by a spread offense. Not sure why he would be surprised by WVU being a 6 point favorite.

I goofed in how I typed that. The bookie said Ohio State would be a 6 point favorite.

guttle11
11-26-2007, 02:02 PM
This doesn't seem to be how you look at things when talking about LSU. You want to say all wins are equal but when somebody wins over LSU it is proof that LSU isn't that good?

I think it is easy to say all wins are created equal when the team you are criticizing has more good wins than any other team in the land. If you want to critique LSU for losing, go ahead. They lost. But the only thing that gives OSU, Mizzou and WVU a better resume is the one in the L column instead of the 2 LSU has.


I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the posts you argue against. You viewed Kentucky beating LSU as a really good win, I said maybe not. Is it really any more impressive than beating any of the many ranked teams of this year? Going beyond a ranking and seeing that rankings mean less about team quality than ever this year, is it really that surprising Kentucky won?

And if you had actually read the post, you'd see that I said I didn't like the way LSU was winning games. They were unimpressive. If you are a truly top ranked team you should be dominating weaker opponents. LSU struggled to win nearly every week and really didn't look like a truly better team than an Alabama or Ole Miss. Nothing stood out.

When you look at WVU, Mizzou, Kansas, OSU, and even Oklahoma and Florida in the games they win, they dominate the play. Sure they all lost games, but top teams losing has become expected. What separates teams in a year like this is how they win. LSU looked truly impressive in two victories this year, the first two weeks of the season.

bucksfan2
11-26-2007, 02:15 PM
When you look at WVU, Mizzou, Kansas, OSU, and even Oklahoma and Florida in the games they win, they dominate the play. Sure they all lost games, but top teams losing has become expected. What separates teams in a year like this is how they win. LSU looked truly impressive in two victories this year, the first two weeks of the season.


Thats called coaching. The better coaches adapt their style of play for each particular game. Look at the OSU Michigan game. In the past Tressel has spread the field wide and put up a lot of points. In the game this year the weather conditions didn't allow for that so when he got the lead he played an old style big 10 game and let his defense win the game. For a team to go undefeated a team has to play different styles of games. I look at LSU and see the talent but don't see the coaching. McFadden threw a few passes but he threw one ball deeper about 20 yards down the field and there were 3 LSU players back to break up the pass. Look Im no coach but if I have a team who has a RB playing QB I sure as heck am not having that many players back in pass coverage.

MaineRed
11-26-2007, 04:07 PM
When you look at WVU, Mizzou, Kansas, OSU, and even Oklahoma and Florida in the games they win, they dominate the play.

Well according to the Sagarin ratings LSU has played a tougher schedule than all these teams except Florida (though their losses are the fault of Tebow) and in the case of both Kansas and Oklahoma, a much tougher schedule.

The tougher opponents you play, the tougher the games will be.

Oklahoma hardly destorys people. They lost to Texas Tech and Colorado. Beat an awful Iowa State team by just ten. The teams they beat soundly were Baylor, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State and the awful non conference teams they played. Real impressive.

Mizzou played Ole Miss and beat them by 13. But lets hold it against LSU that they only beat Ole Miss by 17.

The second best team Kansas played was a ten way tie between all the crappy teams besides Mizzou they played. Do you really think LSU wouldn't blow the doors off every one of those teams?

joshnky
11-26-2007, 04:11 PM
Do you really think LSU wouldn't blow the doors off every one of those teams?

They didn't exactly blow the doors off of a bad Alabama team that two weeks later lost to Louisiana-Monroe.

bucksfan2
11-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Well according to the Sagarin ratings LSU has played a tougher schedule than all these teams except Florida (though their losses are the fault of Tebow) and in the case of both Kansas and Oklahoma, a much tougher schedule.

The tougher opponents you play, the tougher the games will be.

Oklahoma hardly destorys people. They lost to Texas Tech and Colorado. Beat an awful Iowa State team by just ten. The teams they beat soundly were Baylor, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State and the awful non conference teams they played. Real impressive.

Mizzou played Ole Miss and beat them by 13. But lets hold it against LSU that they only beat Ole Miss by 17.

The second best team Kansas played was a ten way tie between all the crappy teams besides Mizzou they played. Do you really think LSU wouldn't blow the doors off every one of those teams?

I hate the comparison that team X and Y both played team Z but team X beat team Z by more so they are better than team Y. The more you watch football the better feel you get for which teams are good and which are a over rated. I watched a little bit of the Kansas Missouri game and realized that the two teams were on two completly different playing levels. Nothing against Kansas but they just didn't have the athlets to compete. Watching LSU you have to wonder why they didn't blow anyone out. Its not too far fetched to think that LSU could have 4 losses with the way some of their games played out. In watching big east football I realize that they aren't quite up to snuff with the other BCS conferences (with the exception of the ACC). Stats and scores can only tell you so much about a football team.

MaineRed
11-26-2007, 04:25 PM
The same Alabama team coached by the guy who knows a thing or two about LSU.

LSU and Bama is a rivalry that has been magnified by Saban now coaching in Tuscaloosa and those kind of games tend to be close no matter how bad the teams are. Mississipi State shouldn't have needed a FG at the buzzer to beat Ole Miss.

It is the same reaosn Kansas barely beat a Kansas State sqaud that lost to Nebraska by 42 points.

Roy Tucker
11-26-2007, 04:25 PM
If there was ever a season that begged for a Div 1 NCAA football playoff bracket, this is it.

GAC
11-26-2007, 08:55 PM
Three college football myths to stay away from

By Gene Wojciechowski
ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3128299&sportCat=ncf

The BCS Works

The BCS works as well as Kim Kardashian in the lead role of "The Eleanor Roosevelt Story." It is the Kim Jong Il of college football: dictatorial and isolationist. BCS cheerleaders figure if they ignore the logic of a playoff system long enough, maybe it will all just go away.

Chase Daniel and Missouri are No. 1. But would the Tigers survive a playoff?
The truth is, the BCS is held together by rolls of duct tape and stubbornness. First the well-intentioned Bowl Coalition, then the Bowl Alliance, and now the Bowl Championship Series. And they still can't get it right.

Just last week BCS administrators had to tweak their "system" for about the billionth time. The latest bandage was applied after it became apparent that the BCS might not have enough eligible at-large teams for its five games. Oops. The BCS works so well that the only undefeated team in the country, Hawaii, could finish the regular season 12-0 and still get squeezed out of a BCS bowl game. Meanwhile, two-loss Georgia, which didn't even win its conference division or qualify for its league championship game, could conceivably play in a national title game. Huh?

And the next person who smugly tells me, "We don't need a playoff system because we already have one: the regular season," is going to get a Mike Gundy-a-gram. Look, if the regular season were really a playoff, Ohio State would have been eliminated Nov. 10, when it lost at home to Illinois. West Virginia would have been history when it lost to a South Florida team that later experienced a three-game free fall. Missouri would have been through when it lost decisively at Oklahoma on Oct. 13. LSU would have been done after an OT loss at Kentucky on the same Saturday. Virginia Tech would have been cooked after a Sept. 8 loss at LSU and most definitely after an Oct. 25 loss at home against Boston College. And USC's hopes would have expired the exact minute it lost at home to a Stanford team that couldn't beat Notre Dame.

Instead, the Buckeyes, Mountaineers, Hokies and both Tigers are somehow still on the short list, while unbeaten Hawaii and its absolutely hellacious offense is placed in BCS quarantine. Explain that. And while you're at it, explain why the Hokies, who have the same 10-2 record as Boston College, are five spots ahead of the Eagles in the latest BCS standings. You can't.

Just think if you could take Ohio State, West Virginia, LSU, Mizzou, Hawaii, BC (sorry, Hokies -- BC won on your field), Oklahoma and USC (sorry, Kansas and Georgia -- you've got to win your conference or at least reach your conference championship game to qualify), and then start an eight-team, seven-game playoff. How's this for a first-round schedule:

Warriors vs. Mountaineers, Tigers vs. Tigers, Buckeyes vs. Sooners, and Trojans vs. Eagles.

But no, we're stuck with the BCS and its weekly standings weirdness. For example, Missouri is your No. 1 team in the country. This is like Homer Simpson picking up Eva Mendes at a Chi Omega party.

Nothing against Mizzou and quarterback Chase Daniel, but the Tigers aren't the No. 1 team in the country. They aren't even favored in Vegas to beat No. 9 Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship (Mizzou is a 3-point dog).

Missouri is ranked first because somebody needs to be there, and because there is no clear-cut No. 1. There are lots of No. 2s and 3s, which is yet another reason a playoff would work, as opposed to this BCS mess.

Just in case anybody needs instructions, contact the NCAA and its Division I-FCS, Division II and III football teams. They've had an actual playoff system for decades.

Heisman Trophy voters know what they're doing

There are 925 Heisman voters -- 870 media, 54 living Heisman winners, one collective fan vote. The more voters, the more probability of the dreaded Knucklehead Factor.

Florida QB Tim Tebow has put up the kind of numbers that should earn him the Heisman Trophy. These are the voters who don't stay up late on the East Coast to watch Hawaii quarterback Colt Brennan. These are the voters who automatically eliminate Florida quarterback Tim Tebow from consideration because he's a -- gasp! -- sophomore. These are the voters who question whether Tebow should even be a finalist, what with the defending national champion Gators only 9-3 and out of the title hunt. These are the voters who confuse NFL potential with college production. These are the voters who sometimes don't even vote (though the online balloting has helped increase the voting activity to about 97 percent).

At that's not the worst of it. Twenty years ago, a Heisman voter once told me he never cast a first-place vote for an African-American player.

The instructions on the Heisman ballot are so simple -- "I hereby designate (name, school) as my first choice to receive the Heisman Memorial Trophy, awarded to the most outstanding college football player in the United States for 2007." It doesn't say, "the most outstanding college football player who doesn't disrupt my sleep patterns," or "the most outstanding college football player who is preferably a junior or senior," or "the most outstanding college football player whose team is undefeated and playing in the BCS Championship Game."

Arkansas running back Darren McFadden has Adrian Peterson-like NFL skills. He'll likely be the first pick in next year's NFL draft. I've seen him play in person and he's other-worldly.

But he's not my first pick on my Heisman ballot. Tebow is.

Tebow has seven more rushing touchdowns than McFadden (22-15) on 110 fewer carries. And anybody who watches Tebow on a regular basis knows those TDs weren't simply QB sneaks. Ten of those 22 touchdowns were 5 yards or longer. And by the way, Tebow is the Gators' leading rusher, which means he took a pounding in the same killer SEC as McFadden. Against Florida State in the regular-season finale, he played part of the second half with a broken right hand.

Tebow has four fewer TD passes (29) than Hawaii's Brennan and Mizzou's Daniel (33), but he also has 178 fewer pass attempts than Daniel and 105 fewer than Brennan. And for those who think Tebow somehow doesn't deserve the trophy because Florida isn't a national title contender, remember this: The Gators lost five starters on offense (including their leading running back and wide receiver) and nine on defense from 2006, and since the BCS began in the 1998 season, no team has won back-to-back BCS championships.

The rest of my ballot? McFadden will occupy the No. 2 spot, with Daniel, Brennan, Oregon quarterback Dennis Dixon or West Virginia quarterback Pat White as my likely No. 3.

Nebraska is an elite coaching job

It used to be. But now-former athletic director Steve Pederson made a critical mistake and imposed his will on a program that needed a facial, not reconstructive cosmetic surgery.

Bill Callahan's tenure has ended. Now, Nebraska has some serious rebuilding to do.
Pederson hired Bill Callahan, who fit like Tabasco sauce on chocolate pudding. Callahan might be a good coach, but he wasn't the right coach for Nebraska.

Now Pederson and Callahan are gone, and so is Nebraska's one longtime advantage: an identity.

Lincoln was once I-Back U. It was Walk-On Heaven. It was a national recruiting pipeline, stretching as far as Jersey, Florida and California.

Now it's a seven-tractor pileup.

Tradition is nice, but elite high school recruits from outside of Nebraska's state lines (and there aren't many of them on an annual basis) don't remember much, if anything, about Mike Rozier. They want to win. They want to be on TV. They want to play for someone who can get them a job in the NFL.

If interim AD Tom Osborne is going to seal the gaping holes in this program, he had better find someone who understands and appreciates Nebraska's past, but more important, someone who understands the realities of its future. Nebraska needs its football identity back.

There are other overrated coaching jobs, beginning with UCLA (everything done on the relative cheap), Arkansas (limited in-state recruiting base, psycho fan expectations), Michigan State (program sounds good on paper, until you realize Michigan and Ohio State are in your conference).

But Nebraska was never in the same paragraph with those type of programs ... until now.

Nebraska football can be fixed. Probably. Not too much is at stake. Only the difference between relevancy and has-been status.

Cedric
11-26-2007, 09:37 PM
Hopefully Oklahoma wins Saturday. Tradition trumps all for me.

OnBaseMachine
11-28-2007, 05:56 PM
Les Miles continues to make himself look stupid. Yesterday he was bragging in the papers how his LSU team is undefeated in regulation. What a jackass. Michigan, stay far away from him...

HotCorner
12-01-2007, 10:59 PM
This is going to be interesting now.

KronoRed
12-01-2007, 11:03 PM
This is going to be interesting now.

It's gonna be a meltdown.

Get the popcorn.

HotCorner
12-01-2007, 11:05 PM
OSU, Georgia, LSU, VT, USC, Oklahoma?

KronoRed
12-01-2007, 11:06 PM
OSU, Georgia, LSU, VT, USC, Oklahoma?

Kansas.

OnBaseMachine
12-01-2007, 11:07 PM
OSU, Georgia, LSU, VT, USC, Oklahoma?

USC, LSU, VT, Georgia, and OK don't deserve to play in the NC.

I'm all for giving Hawaii a chance if they win tonight.

guttle11
12-01-2007, 11:48 PM
Here's my predictions:

BCS National Championship Game
LSU vs OSU

Sugar Bowl
Georgia vs Missouri/Hawaii

Orange Bowl
West Virginia vs Virginia Tech

Rose Bowl
USC vs Illinois

Fiesta Bowl
Oklahoma vs Hawaii/Arizona State

Tough to choose between ASU and Missouri. Hawaii losing would be for the best, because both ASU and Mizzou deserve to go over Hawaii. Either way, the discussion will go on for months.

RBA
12-01-2007, 11:49 PM
USC is going to the BCS Bowl!

Cyclone792
12-01-2007, 11:58 PM
It's gonna be a meltdown.

Get the popcorn.

I'm gonna love every bit of it too.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 12:07 AM
USC is going to the BCS Bowl!

I really hope the playcalling is better in the BCS bowl than it was today. Too many pass plays on first down gets us into 3rd and long and then he calls for a run. Sarkistian has been very inconsistent this year with his playcalling. This team is very, very good when Stafon Johnson and stud freshman Joe McKnight get the bulk of the carries. Those guys are AA/Heisman potential backs, while Chauncey Washington is just a solid back. I wish Pete would realize that.

LoganBuck
12-02-2007, 12:08 AM
Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Dogs of War!

MWM
12-02-2007, 12:19 AM
I love the fact that this might be the messiest year of them all.

USC is the best of the 2 loss teams without a doubt. But it's going to come down to an entirely subjective beauty contest where people start trying to evaluate which loss os worse, or which win is better, etc... The entire exercise is silly.

LoganBuck
12-02-2007, 12:23 AM
Hawaii losing 21-0 to Washington at home.

MaineRed
12-02-2007, 12:45 AM
Someone should open a barbershop near the Hawaii campus.

D-Man
12-02-2007, 12:47 AM
I think Oklahoma *deserves* the opportunity to play OSU with the way they played tonight. LSU backed into the title game with today's performance. Tennessee (Ainge??) lost that game moreso than LSU "won" it.

Although I think several teams have a claim to play for all the marbles:

1.) LSU. Won the conference title for the consensus best conference in the land.
2.) Georgia. By default, the #4 team should play for the title when the #1 and #2 team lose.
3.) OU. Won twice against the #1 team in the country, and won in a landslide.
4.) KU. The only other 1-loss team among the BCS conferences.
5.) USC. The "hottest" team in the country, and the most talented.
6.) VT. Not sure what VT's claim would look like. . . The loss against LSU hurts. But I'm sure someone will make the case for them.

In a perverse way, I hope the Buckeyes play LSU. LSU would walk in to the game as a heavy favorite, there would be lots of clips from last year's Big Ten/SEC title mismatch, the perception is that LSU would be playing a "home" game, and they would be the consensus "best" team in the "best" conference in the country.

Actually, I was hoping for a WVU-OSU because of OSU's struggles with the spread. The OSU-LSU matchup is just as good.

MaineRed
12-02-2007, 12:54 AM
The case for VaTech is that the loss to LSU was the first game of the season and the loss to BC was by four points in a game they outplayed BC in. And they won a league that is ranked by the computers higher than the Big Ten.

The two losses for VaTech are as good of a pair of losses as any two loss team has in terms of who they were against.

It is really hard to rank LSU, USC, Oklahoma, VaTech and Mizzou. What do you do with Mizzou after tonight? If OU is number 3, Mizzou could reasonably be as high as number 4.


I would have:

1. OSU
2. LSU
3. VaTech
4. USC
5. OU
6. Mizzou
7. WVU
8. Georgia

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 12:57 AM
28-7 Washington.

Danny Serafini
12-02-2007, 01:00 AM
Looking at the BCS numbers, I think it's going to be hard for LSU to jump VT. The human polls are a virtual tie. VT has the edge in the computers, and that's going to grow this week, because every computer poll has BC higher than Tennessee, so VT will have earned a better win than LSU this week. The voters are going to have to really keep VT down in order for LSU to pass them. USC has no shot, they're too far back in the computers for the human voters to move them all the way up to #2. Georgia has a healthy lead in the computers, they may be able to withstand a voter backlash, especially if they're fortunate enough to have Missouri fall in between them and VT/LSU in a computer poll or two. A loss to #9 shouldn't be too devastating, at least in the eyes of the computers. Georgia may just pull this out. It's still way too close to call though.

George Foster
12-02-2007, 01:00 AM
The case for VaTech is that the loss to LSU was the first game of the season and the loss to BC was by four points in a game they outplayed BC in. And they won a league that is ranked by the computers higher than the Big Ten.

The two losses for VaTech are as good of a pair of losses as any two loss team has in terms of who they were against.

It is really hard to rank LSU, USC, Oklahoma, VaTech and Mizzou. What do you do with Mizzou after tonight? If OU is number 3, Mizzou could reasonably be as high as number 4.


I would have:

1. OSU
2. LSU
3. VaTech
4. USC
5. OU
6. Mizzou
7. WVU
8. Georgia

I would put ALL conference champions (major conferences) ahead of Mizz. After tonight I would put OU just ahead of Va Tech..

George Foster
12-02-2007, 01:03 AM
Looking at the BCS numbers, I think it's going to be hard for LSU to jump VT. The human polls are a virtual tie. VT has the edge in the computers, and that's going to grow this week, because every computer poll has BC higher than Tennessee, so VT will have earned a better win than LSU this week. The voters are going to have to really keep VT down in order for LSU to pass them. USC has no shot, they're too far back in the computers for the human voters to move them all the way up to #2. Georgia has a healthy lead in the computers, they may be able to withstand a voter backlash, especially if they're fortunate enough to have Missouri fall in between them and VT/LSU in a computer poll or two. A loss to #9 shouldn't be too devastating, at least in the eyes of the computers. Georgia may just pull this out. It's still way too close to call though.

Is the harris interactive poll a "voters poll" or another computer poll? The USA poll is 1/3, the harris is 1/3 and the BCS computer poll is 1/3 of the final BCS standing.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 01:03 AM
28-14 Washington.

LoganBuck
12-02-2007, 01:08 AM
The case for VaTech is that the loss to LSU was the first game of the season and the loss to BC was by four points in a game they outplayed BC in. And they won a league that is ranked by the computers higher than the Big Ten.

The two losses for VaTech are as good of a pair of losses as any two loss team has in terms of who they were against.

It is really hard to rank LSU, USC, Oklahoma, VaTech and Mizzou. What do you do with Mizzou after tonight? If OU is number 3, Mizzou could reasonably be as high as number 4.


I would have:

1. OSU
2. LSU
3. VaTech
4. USC
5. OU
6. Mizzou
7. WVU
8. Georgia

My current list would be
1. OSU by default
2. Georgia Hottest team in the SEC
3. LSU Conference champs of best conference
4. OU Texas Tech loss directly linked to Bradfords concussion
5. USC That loss to Stanford still looks bad.
6. Mizzou Nice season
7. WVU So close, yet so far away, looked bad doing it.
8. VA Tech That early drubbing to LSU still hurts.

MaineRed
12-02-2007, 01:08 AM
I think the Harris Poll are actual humans.

I don't see how voters can put VaTech ahead of LSU.

LSU has the better championship, the SEC, the better record vs. top teams, a better SOS and a 44-7 over the team they are battling in this conversation.

I think this is why ESPN is convinced it will be LSU. When you look at the resume it is hard to trump them.

Who you lost to can't really play into it or otherwise Mizzou should be the team. They have the best pair of losses of any two loss team. When the polls come out they are going to be a two loss team with both losses to a top five team.

What we have is a big fat popularity contest that is going to be decided by a number of folks who were Christmas shopping today.

D-Man
12-02-2007, 01:09 AM
Looking at the BCS numbers, I think it's going to be hard for LSU to jump VT. The human polls are a virtual tie. VT has the edge in the computers, and that's going to grow this week, because every computer poll has BC higher than Tennessee, so VT will have earned a better win than LSU this week. The voters are going to have to really keep VT down in order for LSU to pass them. USC has no shot, they're too far back in the computers for the human voters to move them all the way up to #2. Georgia has a healthy lead in the computers, they may be able to withstand a voter backlash, especially if they're fortunate enough to have Missouri fall in between them and VT/LSU in a computer poll or two. A loss to #9 shouldn't be too devastating, at least in the eyes of the computers. Georgia may just pull this out. It's still way too close to call though.

Voters are finicky. The beauty of the BCS is that voters can compensate for any perceived weakness in the computers. LSU or OU will probably leapfrog the others and will be the #2/#3 teams in the voting polls.

I really don't see Georgia getting in.

LoganBuck
12-02-2007, 01:11 AM
Tougher runner Jake Locker or Tim Tebow?

Danny Serafini
12-02-2007, 01:12 AM
The Harris poll is actual humans.

MaineRed
12-02-2007, 01:14 AM
Also have to remember that these wins today will really help VaTech and LSU with the computers. Those are quality wins that will help the SOS. LSU is at 26 and they will get a double boost by VaTech winning. Probably a top ten SOS after today.

OU will get a nice boost as well on teams like USC, Kansas and obviously Mizzou in the computers.

I don't see Georgia getting in as well. How can anyone vote Georgia over LSU? That would be like voting Kansas ahead of Mizzou. You can't do it can you?

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 01:23 AM
Hawaii gets another TD pass right before halftime. 28-21 Washington with 21 seconds left in the first half.

BuckeyeRed27
12-02-2007, 01:25 AM
I think the three teams that have a claim are VT, LSU and Oklahoma. Georgia and Kansas didn't win their division and USC lost to Stanford.

Between those first three its a tough tough choice.

D-Man
12-02-2007, 01:26 AM
Just heard Brad Edwards (ESPN's BCS guru) predict OSU-LSU.

He indicates that the cases for Georgia and Kansas, sans conference championships, are much weaker today than they would have been under the 2001 or 2003 formulas (when Nebraska and Oklahoma were accepted into the title game without winning their conferences).

USC and OU are both weak in the computers--it is unlikely that they will overcome the computers.

Seems that LSU has a number of different currents working in their favor.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 01:27 AM
It will be a damn shame if an average team like LSwho is allowed to play in the NC.

Danny Serafini
12-02-2007, 01:28 AM
Doing some quick and dirty math, it looks like about 2/3 of the voters will have to place LSU ahead of VT in order to make up VT's edge in the computers. That shouldn't be too difficult in the Harris poll, LSU already leads. The problem is with the coach's poll. VT is ahead of LSU there, LSU will have to swing quite a few votes. If I had to guess, I'd say VT barely squeaks ahead of LSU. Georgia's going to stay ahead of both in the computers, and they have a big edge in poll votes, but I could definitely see voters dropping Georgia because they don't think a team that didn't win its conference should go to the title game.

Danny Serafini
12-02-2007, 01:29 AM
Amusing note of the week, someone in the Harris poll voted Hawaii #1.

MaineRed
12-02-2007, 01:36 AM
I understand if you think someone is more deserving but it seems quite silly to say that LSU is average relative to these other teams being discussed.

Depending on what day you had your TV on it is easy to say so and so is average or even bad. What if I had only seen the Sooners play Colorado and Texas Tech? I'd think they were awful. What if I only saw USC playing Stanford and Oregon? Ah, average. But for some odd reason these folks who can't stand SEC football spend their Saturdays scouting the league.

LSU is as deserving as any two loss team and you just aren't being objective to suggest otherwise. I think most folks can recognize that.

This is going to be very interesting. I think VaTech is much better than the 44-7 loss to LSU but doesn't that have to account for just enough to put LSU higher since VaTech really doesn't have anything else on LSU? Seems LSU has the better resume and that pounding of VaTech is just the icing on top.

MartyFan
12-02-2007, 01:38 AM
BCS Champ game is going to be OSU vs LSU

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 01:41 AM
LSwho is very average with a very overrated defense. I look forward to watching Wells shred that defense.

MWM
12-02-2007, 01:46 AM
Their defense will be completely different with Dorsey. It's going to be a low scoring game. Neither team has a great offense, and both have defenses capable of shutting the other down. I honestly have no idea what to expect out of a matchup of these two teams. The fact that it's played in LSU's backyard will make them the favorite.

MaineRed
12-02-2007, 01:48 AM
Overrated by who?

Offense rules college football. Nobody has a great defense it seems and the teams that do usually show it against patsies. LSU has the best defensive player in the land but he has been banged up since the Auburn game.

I don't see too many people humping their defense. Just another myth. People act like the whole world compares them to the 85 Bears. I just don't see it.

Are they overrated? They are third in the NCAA in yards allowed per game. OSU is 1, USC 2. Ohio State is also first in points allowed. They are comfortably in front in both categories in fact.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 01:50 AM
I predict:

OSU 62, LSU 3

guttle11
12-02-2007, 02:08 AM
I actually hope it is Ohio State vs LSU. I have absolutely no clue who will win, but if the SEC is the perceived beast, why wouldn't you want to take them on?

I was 99% sure Oklahoma would win, so I've been looking at an OSU/WVU game for a week. To be honest, I think OSU beats WVU by 17 points. WVU is one-dimensional, not good at actually breaking tackles (only good at beating slow players that take bad angles to a spot), turnover prone, they neglect Slaton far too quickly, and White is fragile against physicality. They're weak up the middle on defense. There's nothing about WVU that tells me they can compete well with a physical team like OSU.

LSU on the other hand, obviously is a team that is capable of doing so. It's a much more interesting matchup to me.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 03:22 AM
Hawaii wins 35-28 to finish 12-0 and clinch a BCS berth.

Hawaii got a TD to take the 35-28 lead with 44 seconds left. UW returned the kickoff to their own 22 with 38 seconds. Locker fired a perfect pass to his TE for 25 yards to the 47 and then followed with a 49-yard bomb to Marcel Reese for a first and goal at the Hawaii 4 with 20 seconds. A possible great comeback was ruined after a QB option for a loss of a yard, and then on the next play Locker fired a perfect pass to Reese in the endzone, who had it hit him right in the hands and bounce out and into the hands of a Hawaii defender for an interception. What should have been the game-tying TD turned into the BCS clinching play for Hawaii. Congrats to Hawaii, I was hoping they would get a BCS berth.

guttle11
12-02-2007, 03:25 AM
Watching Georgia or Oklahoma trounce Hawaii will bring me great pleasure. Hawaii is beyond weak on both lines. Either team they play will run over, around, and through them.

WMR
12-02-2007, 03:35 AM
Watching Georgia or Oklahoma trounce Hawaii will bring me great pleasure. Hawaii is beyond weak on both lines. Either team they play will run over, around, and through them.

I think I heard they get four some million dollars for a Sugar Bowl appearance... their entire budget for football is 2.4 million. Even if they are routed, it is wonderful for their program.

GAC
12-02-2007, 04:41 AM
I love the fact that this might be the messiest year of them all.

USC is the best of the 2 loss teams without a doubt. But it's going to come down to an entirely subjective beauty contest where people start trying to evaluate which loss os worse, or which win is better, etc... The entire exercise is silly.

I agree Mike. Trying to break this thing down, compare and evaluate "quality" losses to see who does/doesn't deserve to be in the game, is going to require a lot of this...

http://www.excedrin.com/images/products/th.jpg

"they beat this team, but lost big time to so-and-so. But on the other hand, so-and-so is no slouch because they upset a #2 and had two wins vs top 20 teams. But then they also turned around and lost to two unranked teams. But how can you leave WhatsamattaU out of it when even though they had two losses, their strength of schedule was nothing to sneeze at."

It's going to be interesting.

I have actually enjoyed this college football season and it's upheavals and uncertainty. Whoever ends up winning the NC game probably still isn't the best team in the land, but who cares at this point? :lol:

GAC
12-02-2007, 04:48 AM
Vote: Will the BCS get it right?

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=3273

The results so far....

1) Do you think the two best teams in the country will play for the national title?

80.6% No
19.4% Yes

2) Is Ohio State one of the two best teams in the nation?

62.9% No
37.1% Yes

3) If Ohio State moves up to No. 1, which other team most deserves to play in the title game?

29.6% LSU
20.8% Georgia
11.7% Hawaii
11.3% USC
10.5% Oklahoma
7.5% Virginia Tech
7.1% Kansas
0.7% West Virginia
0.7% Missouri

4) Should college football have a playoff system?

85.2% Yes
14.8% No

5) If all were involved, which team below do you think would win a playoff this season?

22.2% USC
20.5% LSU
14.1% Ohio State
13.2% Georgia
11.8% Oklahoma
6.7% Florida
3.7% Virginia Tech
3.2% Hawaii
1.9% Kansas
1.4% West Virginia
0.8% Missouri
0.6% Arizona State

6) If college football adopted a playoff, how many teams should be included?

37.8% 8
19.3% 16
18.9% 12 (top four seeds receive first-round byes)
13.9% 6 (top two seeds receive first-round byes)
10.0% 4

GAC
12-02-2007, 05:01 AM
While I would have no problem at all seeing LSU in the title game (who cares anymore :lol:). I don't know if they should jump over VT.

VT beats #11 BC by two TDs, while LSU struggled against #14 Tennessee, and thanks to Vols QB Ainge.

So if VT is #6 and LSU is #7 in the BCS going into Saturday, and VT beats a higher ranked opponent then LSU (6 beats 11, 7 beats 14), then someone explain why they shouldn't maintain their edge/higher ranking over LSU, or how LSU should now jump over VT? Based on what?

MWM
12-02-2007, 10:11 AM
OBM, you're crazy if you think OSU is going to blow out anyone in the title game. If it's OSU/LSU, I'd handicap it at just about even at a neutral field. Given it's virtually a home game for LSU, I'd give them 1.5 to 1 odds to win. I never saw the WV loss coming, so I was really looking forward to a OSU/WVU game. I thought it would have been a really good game, but I thought OSU would win that one. LSU, on the other hand, you just never know who's going to show up. They're capable of playing really good football, even though they don't most of the time. Anytime you have an entire month to prepare, the level of unexpected goes way up.

And didn't you predict an OSU blowout last year? I'm afraid you've just doomed the Buckeyes to a big loss.

MWM
12-02-2007, 10:13 AM
Oh man, I missed the 4th quarter of the SEC game yesterday, so I didn't know what everyone was referring to with Ainge. I just saw the highlights, and it's been a while since I've seen a QB pretty much hand the game to the other team like that. LSU's a good team and all, but they're a couple of plays away from being 13-0. But they're also a couple of plays away from being 8-4. That's some tightrope they've been walking all year.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 10:18 AM
I don't remember picking OSU to win big last year, though I may have.

Jim Tressel vs Lester "I'm the football coach! Miles. Given a month to prepare, I'll take Tressel over Miles everyday of the week.

MWM, check your PM's. ;)

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2007, 10:26 AM
I would love to see the Pac-10 come out and announce that they are leaving the BCS today, especially if ASU gets screwed out of a BCS bowl (and they will). The Pac-10 nearly left the BCS in 2000 and I'd like for them to actually do it this year. Maybe a few others would follow (the SEC won't since everything goes their way).

MWM
12-02-2007, 10:44 AM
I would love to see the Pac-10 come out and announce that they are leaving the BCS today, especially if ASU gets screwed out of a BCS bowl (and they will). The Pac-10 nearly left the BCS in 2000 and I'd like for them to actually do it this year. Maybe a few others would follow (the SEC won't since everything goes their way).

2004 undefeated Auburn says hi? :evil:

I agree the BCS is ridiculous, but there's no way the Pac-10 leaving it would be in their best interests, unless they had another major conference join them.

MWM
12-02-2007, 10:52 AM
The interesting thing is that last year the precedent was set that poll position prior to the last vote doesn't matter that much. the idea that if you're ranked X going into the last week and you win or don't play, that doesn't at all mean you won't move down. If they do the same thing this year, then it will pretty much become the standard that the last vote of the year, people will just put who they think is most deserving.