PDA

View Full Version : 2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections



Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 02:16 PM
Might as well start its own thread. The BCS will probably be out around 4:30pm, though the Harris poll may be available before that. When the Harris poll comes out, we might be able to guess the BCS order since the Coaches poll has already been released:

No. School Record Points Prev
1 Alabama (57) 12-0 1520 1
2 Oklahoma (2) 11-1 1396] 2
3 Texas 11-1 1395 4
4 Florida (1) 11-1 1384 3
5 USC 10-1 1297 5
6 Penn State 11-1 1175 6
7 Utah 12-0 1152 7
8 Texas Tech (1) 11-1 1124 8
9 Boise State 12-0 1043 9
10 Ohio State 10-2 999 10
11 TCU 10-2 836 14
12 Cincinnati 10-2 770 16
13 Ball State 12-0 765 15
14 Oregon 9-3 658 18
15 Oklahoma State 9-3 613 12
16 Georgia Tech 9-3 590 23
17 Missouri 9-3 470 11
18 Brigham Young 10-2 461 19
19 Georgia 9-3 440 13
20 Boston College 9-3 435 22
21 Michigan State 9-3 414 21
22 Northwestern 9-3 333 20
23 Pittsburgh 8-3 154 26
24 Oregon State 8-4 127 17
25 Mississippi 8-4 126 27
Texas picked up 41 points on Oklahoma this week in the Coaches poll, and with that I think they now have the inside-track to the BCS title game. Oklahoma will get a boost in the computers because of their quality win last night on the road against a ranked Oklahoma State team, but I don't think they'll get enough of a boost to offset the gains Texas picked up in the Coaches poll. FWIW, I also expect Texas to make points gains in the Harris poll too.

For the fun of it, here are my own BCS projections as of now:

BCS National Championship
Florida vs. Texas

Fiesta Bowl
Oklahoma vs. Utah

Sugar Bowl
Alabama vs. Ohio State

Orange Bowl
Cincinnati vs. Boston College

Rose Bowl
USC vs. Penn State

LoganBuck
11-30-2008, 02:40 PM
Agree, I also think UC fans are quick to overlook VaTech. They could give Boston College as surprise this week.

Potential gate crashers
Oregon State-- if USC loses to UCLA, Oregon State clinches Pac10 Rose Bowl bid via tiebreaker. USC gets at large bid tentatively going to Ohio State or maybe Boise State.

Boise State -- Can a bowl take Boise State over Ohio State, and still hope to turn a profit? They are a sentimental choice, but the bowl committees need to sell tickets, hotels, meals, alcohol, and TV advertising.

KronoRed
11-30-2008, 02:55 PM
Already it's starting in some quarters "lets have a rematch of Texas and Oklahoma" in the BCS title game.

Hey SEC winner, USC, Penn St you guys can sit on it for winning your conference, we want a rematch of a game that wasn't even that interesting the first time.

Pfft.

LoganBuck
11-30-2008, 03:04 PM
Already it's starting in some quarters "lets have a rematch of Texas and Oklahoma" in the BCS title game.

Hey SEC winner, USC, Penn St you guys can sit on it for winning your conference, we want a rematch of a game that wasn't even that interesting the first time.

Pfft.

Agree, the precedent was set in 2006, we don't want to see it, and that 2006 OSU-Michigan game was very competitive.

OnBaseMachine
11-30-2008, 04:57 PM
Please keep Oklahoma out of the National Championship game.

Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 04:58 PM
Harris poll is out:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/bcsnews/BCS_Nov_30_2008.pdf

Texas goes from trailing Oklahoma by 21 points to leading Oklahoma by six points. This will be determined by the computer rankings, which last week gave Texas a decent advantage. Of course, with Texas playing a weak opponent at home and Oklahoma winning a tough road game, those will tighten up.

My prediction is Texas by a nose.

Highlifeman21
11-30-2008, 05:08 PM
Please keep Oklahoma out of the National Championship game.

Seriously.

They are a good team offensively, but the Big 12 as a whole plays zero defense. Zero. Zip. Zilch.


Dunn went to Texas, so maybe that's where he learned his brand of defense....



... but on a more serious note, Oklahoma's lack of D would get seriously exploited by a number of teams at the top of the BCS rankings, and IMO they'd be a horrible team to play in the NC, unless they played another Big 12 team (which we don't need to see, nor should we)...

OnBaseMachine
11-30-2008, 05:36 PM
Choklahoma is #2 in the BCS. Unreal. The BCS is garbage it's completely ruining college football. It's sucking the fun completely out of college football. I hope that arrogant punk Bob Stoops and his OK team gets crushed by 20+ points. And they will, because they're Choklahoma.

Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 05:38 PM
Wow, so my prediction was off ... it's Oklahoma by a nose.

RedsBaron
11-30-2008, 05:46 PM
The BCS is a bad joke.

KronoRed
11-30-2008, 05:54 PM
The stage is now set for the Ok/Tex rematch.

Zzzzz.

KronoRed
11-30-2008, 06:07 PM
Interesting stuff.

In the BCS era, teams that won their conference championship game to get to the national title game are 6-1. Teams from conferences without championship games are 4-7. Teams from conferences with championship games that got to the title game without winning their conference championship are 0-2.

Caveat Emperor
11-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Boise State -- Can a bowl take Boise State over Ohio State, and still hope to turn a profit? They are a sentimental choice, but the bowl committees need to sell tickets, hotels, meals, alcohol, and TV advertising.

These games will sell out regardless of the teams involved, so ticket sales aren't really that big a concern. TV revenue is the same way -- really the only way you seriously boost TV numbers is to put a school like Notre Dame, with a truly national fanabse, into the game or a school like USC from a huge media-market. Boise State / Ohio State is almost a wash in my mind; Columbus TVs vs. Cinderella Interest balances out, IMO.

I'd be truly disappointed if the BCS snubbed Boise State, who have already delivered the best BCS game in recent memory, just to sell a few more hotel rooms.

OnBaseMachine
11-30-2008, 06:14 PM
I love how Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Texas despite them having the same record and Texas beat Choklahoma by 10 points. Makes perfect sense to me. The BS = garbage.

Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 06:24 PM
Here is the full top 40:

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/851/2008nov30bcska3.jpg

Caveat Emperor
11-30-2008, 06:29 PM
Really, I have a tough time seeing how anyone with an ounce of sense thinks that Oklahoma is better than Texas (who beat them) and Florida (who looks better than anyone else in the nation right now).

dougdirt
11-30-2008, 06:33 PM
Really, I have a tough time seeing how anyone with an ounce of sense thinks that Oklahoma is better than Texas (who beat them) and Florida (who looks better than anyone else in the nation right now).

While I will give you the Texas argument, I would say people saying Oklahoma is better than Florida can hold some weight. Florida looks really good, but they have 1 loss just like Oklahoma, only Florida lost at home to a good, but not very good team. Oklahoma lost at a neutral site to one of the best teams in the country. Is Florida better than Oklahoma, yeah, I think so. But there is an argument that suggests they might not be.

Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 06:49 PM
My own updated BCS projections as of now with the latest BCS update:

BCS National Championship
Florida vs. Oklahoma

Fiesta Bowl
Texas vs. Utah

Sugar Bowl
Alabama vs. Ohio State

Orange Bowl
Cincinnati vs. Boston College

Rose Bowl
USC vs. Penn State

Note that this is what I think will happen, not necessarily what I want to see happen. There are quite a few differences in what I want to happen vs. what I think will happen.

MWM
11-30-2008, 07:07 PM
I love how Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Texas despite them having the same record and Texas beat Choklahoma by 10 points. Makes perfect sense to me. The BS = garbage.

Nothing about it makes sense, but if I had a vote, it would go to Oklahoma over Texas. I just think they're better and would have a better chance of knocking off Alabama or Florida in the title game. I watched their game and I thought Oklahoma looked like the better team most of the game. A couple of key mistakes hurt them.

But if you use the same logic, how could you vote Texas ahead of Texas Tech when they both have one loss and Tech beat Texas? If you're trying to apply a consistent logic with any of this, it's a futile exercise.

Heck, you could make the case for or against several team other than Alabama who is undefeated. I think one could argue that USC is as deserving as any other one loss team. They're defense has been awesome all year. They're one of the few teams with a marquis non-conference win. Their loss was on the road early in the season to a team that wound up being pretty good.

Personally, I think Florida might be the best team in the country right now. But if we're going to be consistent from year to year, we have to apply the same types of criteria that get applied every year. In the past, I've been told that it's not a matter of who you think is best, but you have to look at other factors first. None of the teams in the runing have a loss as bad as Ole Miss at home. When USC lost to Oregon State, right here on this site plenty of folks said that if you lose to Oregon State, you don't deserve to play for the title. It's hypocritical for people to virtually eliminate USC after that loss, but not Florida after Ole Miss.

And I know the respnse is going to be SEC, SEC. Normally, I might agree, but to be perfectly honest, that argument doesn't hold near the water it has in the past. While normally, the SEC is incredibly tough, this year not so much. I know that's blasphemy to some, but I call them like I see them, and this year, outside of Alabama and Florida, there's no other great team. Goergia is pretty good, but I think we've learned they're not all that great. They don't know how to play defense which precludes them from being a top tier team. And LSU was never that good to begin with. South Carolina? Nah. So this year, I don't think you can use the SEC schedule as an argument for a team like Florida. Now, it Florida beats Alabama, then it would be tough to keep them out. But as of right now, they really don't have a marquis win this season.

And I think it's ridiculous that Penn State is just completely forgotten just because they're in the Big Ten. They have a pretty good non-conference win by demolishing Oregon State. And they went in and beat Ohio State in Columbus. Yet, they're not even getting mentioned, which is BS, IMO. They could play with anyone in the mix and are as deserving as anyone.

It's utter nonsense that we have to go through the exercise every single year of prettying up some teams while trying to find warts in others. It lends itself to bias with voters looking for reasons to put some teams in the game while leave others out. It's all so arbitrary and it's insulting that some of the pundits, and fans, try to pretend that it's object. There's so much hypocrisy in the process, it's ridiculous.

Caveat Emperor
11-30-2008, 07:47 PM
And I think it's ridiculous that Penn State is just completely forgotten just because they're in the Big Ten. They have a pretty good non-conference win by demolishing Oregon State. And they went in and beat Ohio State in Columbus. Yet, they're not even getting mentioned, which is BS, IMO. They could play with anyone in the mix and are as deserving as anyone.

I'm with you on all your other points -- especially re: USC. They're playing just as well as any other team in the nation right now, save for maybe Florida. They get hurt, as always, not so much by the fact that they play on the west coast but rather that most of their opponents play on the west coast. People know all about USC, but much less about the quality of the teams they're playing.

But, the Penn State point is a little weaker. They're playing in the second-weakest BCS conference (behind only the Big East), their loss to Iowa (current BCS rank of 31), albeit on the road, is about the same as Florida losing to Ole' Miss (current BCS rank of 27). Plus, they're hurt (as usual) by not having a conference title game that puts them up against another top-ranked opponent to boost SOS at the end of the year.

Plus, there's the undeniable fact that they just don't look as talented as any of the other teams being talked about here. I don't see Penn State beating a single team ahead of them, save for Utah, on a neutral site. When Penn State plays, they look they're moving in slow motion. They'd get destroyed, IMO, by Florida, USC, Oklahoma or Texas.

Chip R
11-30-2008, 07:51 PM
And I think it's ridiculous that Penn State is just completely forgotten just because they're in the Big Ten. They have a pretty good non-conference win by demolishing Oregon State. And they went in and beat Ohio State in Columbus. Yet, they're not even getting mentioned, which is BS, IMO. They could play with anyone in the mix and are as deserving as anyone.


That's the problem right there. Due to recent BCS and regular season failures, the Big 10 will be overlooked because the people in charge do not think the best Big 10 team can beat USC or the best the Big 12 or SEC has to offer. I wonder if they would even be 2nd in the BCS if they had beaten Iowa. The Big 10 commissioner is the main obstacle to a playoff system but his conference is getting screwed in the BCS because of past failures.

GAC
11-30-2008, 07:59 PM
I think USC will simply crush Penn State. Penn State has not looked that good towards the end of the season, even with that "convincing" win over MSU.

Oklahoma will have no problem with Missouri. I'd love to see Alabama beat Florida, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

guttle11
11-30-2008, 08:06 PM
I think Oklahoma over Texas is the right call. You can't just look at the head to head matchup, that ignores 11 other games. Oklahoma beat BCS bowl bound Cincinnati OOC, while Texas' best OOC win was TCU. Looking at the three way tie, Oklahoma destroyed TTU while Texas lost to them.

Keeping score that's 2-1 in favor of Oklahoma. I think everything else balances out. It's really not fair to Texas, but them's the breaks in a flawed system. It's really not fair to USC, Penn State, or Bama if they lose to Florida, either.

OnBaseMachine
11-30-2008, 08:56 PM
I think USC-Penn State will make for a great Rose Bowl (assuming USC beats UCLA). I look for that to be a great game.

I won't be watching the National Championship if Oklahoma is involved. They simply aren't that good IMO. I look for them to get crushed yet again. Every year they fool people into thinking they are a top two team and every year they get owned in the BCS bowl.

MWM
11-30-2008, 09:10 PM
I'm with you on all your other points -- especially re: USC. They're playing just as well as any other team in the nation right now, save for maybe Florida. They get hurt, as always, not so much by the fact that they play on the west coast but rather that most of their opponents play on the west coast. People know all about USC, but much less about the quality of the teams they're playing.

But, the Penn State point is a little weaker. They're playing in the second-weakest BCS conference (behind only the Big East), their loss to Iowa (current BCS rank of 31), albeit on the road, is about the same as Florida losing to Ole' Miss (current BCS rank of 27). Plus, they're hurt (as usual) by not having a conference title game that puts them up against another top-ranked opponent to boost SOS at the end of the year.

Plus, there's the undeniable fact that they just don't look as talented as any of the other teams being talked about here. I don't see Penn State beating a single team ahead of them, save for Utah, on a neutral site. When Penn State plays, they look they're moving in slow motion. They'd get destroyed, IMO, by Florida, USC, Oklahoma or Texas.

I disagree. I'd say you probably didn't watch a whole lot of Penn State this year if you think they're slow. They had a bad few games on offense, but for most of the year, they looked really good. They were their own worst enemy moving back to the conservative style offense. Once they moved back to more aggressive paly calling, they started to look like a great team again. They beat a couple of pretty good teams badly. I'm also quite tired of conference arguments as well. Sure, that's important, but it gets so overblown. Conference strength or weakness can be misleading. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Some conferences have two great teams, then not much of anything else. Other conferences have one great team, and then a bunch of above average teams. Others can have a bunch of average teams. Again, I think the conference arguments get way overblown. I've watched Penn State play several times this year. I don't care what the computers say about the Big Ten, they can play with any top 10 team. I'm not saying they would win, but they could and they wouldn't get blown out. They would not get blown out by those teams We heard the same thing last year about the Big Ten. And Michigan was the third best team in the Big Ten and Florida was the second best team in SEC. People said the same thing about itbeing a blow out. Turns out Michigan pretty much handled Florida pretty easily. Year after year we hear the same arguments, yet over the past decade, only 1 game separates the Big Ten from the SEC in head to head bowl games.

The Big Ten is better than the ACC, the Big East, is every bit as good as the Pac-10. I don't accept the "conference rankings" as bible and I don't think anyone else should either. People take those rankings and use them to project upon a team. I look at the individual team much more than I do the conference. Back when USC was winning National Titles, the Pac-10 was awful, yet that didn't mean they weren't the best team in the country. I think the whole conference strength argument is having way too much impact on perceptions of individual teams. I loathe the logic of .... Team A plays in conferce X which isn't very good, therefore, Team A must not be very good.

Certainly, some conferences are better than others, but the difference isn't near as great as some make it out to be ... especially this year. For the most part, conference strengths are deterined by the middle of the curve teams. I think the top team or two in most conferences could compete with the top couple of teams in most other conferences. And that's what we're talking here. Does it really matter that the #4-#6 teams in Conference A aren't as bad as the #4-#6 teams in another conference? Because that's really what we're arguing when we argue conference strengths.

Does Florida or Alabama have a marquis out of conference win? Floirda State? Nope. Not Florida's fault, as having them on the schedule every year is a tough thing. Miami? Nope. Clemson for Alabama? Nope.

How about Texas? They played no one outside their conference this year. At least Oklahoma has a decisive win against Cincinnati who won the Big East and is a pretty good team.

Yet, USC played Ohio State and demilished them, yet no no one seems to blink an eye about them not being the national title conversation. Of all the teams involved, they are the ones getting the shaft the most. There's so much speaking out of both sides of the mouth from both the media and fans that it's become comical. For years, I kept hearing about how certain teams shouldn't be given opportunities because they haven't beaten anyone and they didn't play anyone out of conference. Even when good programs were scheduled tha were having a down year, that was no consolation. Sure, folks would admit that it's not their fault, but the lack of quality wins outside the conference was always played up as a reason to leave teams out while other ones were in. Yet this year, no one is saying boo about it this year with other teams.

If we're not going to have a playoff, the very least the voters and media should do is be consistent with the criteria they use every year to determine who is in and who gets left out. But it's something different every year depending on someone's pre-determined beliefs or based on brand name of the team's involved. It's an inherently unfair system that takes it off the field, and I hate that.

GAC
11-30-2008, 09:14 PM
I think Oklahoma over Texas is the right call. You can't just look at the head to head match up, that ignores 11 other games.

Exactly. You can't ignore the other computer variables, and simply look at a head-to-head matchup between two teams as the sole determining factor. It is a flawed system.

They need a playoff system. ;)

MWM
11-30-2008, 09:18 PM
I think USC-Penn State will make for a great Rose Bowl (assuming USC beats UCLA). I look for that to be a great game.

I won't be watching the National Championship if Oklahoma is involved. They simply aren't that good IMO. I look for them to get crushed yet again. Every year they fool people into thinking they are a top two team and every year they get owned in the BCS bowl.

On a neutral field, maybe. But another thing that sucks about the bowl system is that certain teams get to play home games most of the time in their bowl. I don't think it will be a blowout, but if it were played on a neutral site it would be a different game. USC would still be the favorite, but not by as much.

And I disagree on Oklahoma. I think they're really good and could play with anyone, including Florida and Alabama. I'm not going to worry about something that happened years ago. It' a different team.

Marc D
11-30-2008, 09:34 PM
These games will sell out regardless of the teams involved, so ticket sales aren't really that big a concern. TV revenue is the same way -- really the only way you seriously boost TV numbers is to put a school like Notre Dame, with a truly national fanabse, into the game or a school like USC from a huge media-market. Boise State / Ohio State is almost a wash in my mind; Columbus TVs vs. Cinderella Interest balances out, IMO.

I'd be truly disappointed if the BCS snubbed Boise State, who have already delivered the best BCS game in recent memory, just to sell a few more hotel rooms.


You are seriously underestimating the financial impact a school like OSU will make for a Bowl game. The non championship games are anything but guaranteed sellouts and OSU has as much national TV appeal/fan base as any program.

If it is indeed an Alabama vs OSU Sugar Bowl ask a lot of the locals in New Orleans if they wouldn't be happy to see the masses of Buckeye fans come back. They were gushing in their thanks last year for all the business that OSU fans brought to them as they continue to rebuild.

If OSU gets invited to the BCS it will be their 4th at large invite in as many chances for a reason, they make a much larger difference than just a couple of hotel rooms.

Caveat Emperor
11-30-2008, 09:52 PM
I disagree. I'd say you probably didn't watch a whole lot of Penn State this year if you think they're slow. They had a bad few games on offense, but for most of the year, they looked really good. They were their own worst enemy moving back to the conservative style offense. Once they moved back to more aggressive paly calling, they started to look like a great team again. They beat a couple of pretty good teams badly.

I don't profess to be a college football expert, and I'll admit I only watched Penn State play 3 or 4 times this year. It's no secret I'm not a fan of the Big 10's style of play, and I usually don't watch if there's an equally compelling game from another conference on. So I'm certain there's a fair amount of bias there.

When I did watch Penn State play, what I saw was a fairly vanilla offense that was punctuated by the occasional big play. I didn't see a lot of explosiveness from anyone on the offense, and I certainly didn't see a lot of creative scheming. That was just my impressions of them. They did beat some good teams this year -- I thought their end-of-the-year win against Michigan State was fairly impressive, but my "come away" from that game was more "Man, Michigan State is a total fraud" moreso than "Man, Penn State is really good."

Just my opinion, admittedly colored by a distaste for Big 10 football.


I'm also quite tired of conference arguments as well. Sure, that's important, but it gets so overblown. Conference strength or weakness can be misleading. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Some conferences have two great teams, then not much of anything else. Other conferences have one great team, and then a bunch of above average teams. Others can have a bunch of average teams. Again, I think the conference arguments get way overblown.

And I agree -- which is why I think you need to look at the bigger picture to determine whether a team is any good. How are they coached? Do they play well on both sides of the ball? Do they have top-flight talent at the key positions on the field? How do they play in big-time games? Who are they playing and beating? Etc.

Conference quality factors in there, but as one of many factors. I don't think anyone is saying that X team is better than Y team because X's conference is better than Y's. If they are saying that, their opinion doesn't really matter.


Does Florida or Alabama have a marquis out of conference win? Floirda State? Nope. Not Florida's fault, as having them on the schedule every year is a tough thing. Miami? Nope. Clemson for Alabama? Nope.

Not for nothing, but Florida State was a Top-20 team as of last week and are still in the Top-25 in the latest BCS rankings. I'd say that qualifies as a quality road win, especially given their status as an in-state rival -- even if I do think that Florida State tends to get more "sentimental" votes than other programs that leads to them being ranked when they aren't really all that good.


How about Texas? They played no one outside their conference this year. At least Oklahoma has a decisive win against Cincinnati who won the Big East and is a pretty good team.

Texas's OOC schedule is weak, but my gosh -- look at the gauntlet they ran in the Big 12: vs. 1 Oklahoma, v. 11 Missouri, v. 6 Oklahoma State (all Ws) and then a last-second loss @ 7 Texas Tech. Same with Oklahoma, except add in TCU, Cincinnati and Kansas for them.

Penn State and USC both have quality OOC wins (Oregon State for Penn and Ohio State for USC), but both are at home vs. trans-continental opponents. Teams that travel cross-country to play a game, generally, don't play well and end up at a massive disadvantage. They're good wins, but you've gotta take both with a grain of salt, IMO.


If we're not going to have a playoff, the very least the voters and media should do is be consistent with the criteria they use every year to determine who is in and who gets left out. But it's something different every year depending on someone's pre-determined beliefs or based on brand name of the team's involved. It's an inherently unfair system that takes it off the field, and I hate that.

So who do you reward? The team that plays tough OOC opponents but plays in a dog conference? The team from the powerhouse conference that dominates but plays no one from the outside? Everything is fluid every year, and there's no way to weigh what should matter most in a given year.

This year, does the Big 12's plethora of top-flight teams offset the weak OOC schedule from some of their squads? Do we excuse a weak PAC 10 or weak Big 10 because it's outside of Penn State's or USC's control and look to their quality OOC wins?

If you can figure out a way to weigh all this kinda stuff and make some list of factors and their importance then more power to you. I don't think it's possible under the system we have now -- because apparently there are computers out there that think Utah is a better team than Florida, which is just unfathomable.

Caveat Emperor
11-30-2008, 09:58 PM
You are seriously underestimating the financial impact a school like OSU will make for a Bowl game. The non championship games are anything but guaranteed sellouts and OSU has as much national TV appeal/fan base as any program.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think every BCS bowl has sold out since the system began.

These games make tons of money for both the BCS and the cities regardless of who plays. Does a football factory school like Oklahoma or Ohio State bring a huge contingent of fans? Surely.

But the game will sell out regardless of who plays, fans will travel regardless of who plays, and a lot of money will be made regardless of who plays. Unless the goal is purely profit maximization (in which case the entire system is just a sham), the BCS should be seeded by what happens on the field instead of what happens with boosters.

Now, your garden variety bowls...that's a different story entirely.

Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 10:03 PM
The stage is now set for the Ok/Tex rematch.

Zzzzz.

You know, I didn't think it was possible until I looked closely at the individual point totals and the computer rankings. But now that you mention it, I think the possibility is certainly there.

If Florida beats Alabama next weekend, then Alabama will be out. But the more I look at it, the more I'm not necessarily sure that a win by Florida will automatically put them in. They are lagging considerably in the computer rankings as follows:

1) Oklahoma
2) Texas
3) Alabama
4) Texas Tech
5) Utah
6) Florida

In fact, Texas has Florida beat in every individual computer ranking too.

Some things to think about:

1) If Oklahoma and Florida both win, would human voters jump Florida all the way to #1 ahead of Oklahoma? Florida would be looking for those valuable points.

2) How far would voters be willing to drop Texas to ensure Florida gets in? It's apparent that this week voters gave more points to Texas than they did last week. Would the opposite then happen next week with Texas being idle?

3) Florida needs a bunch of help in the computer rankings. Beating Alabama will obviously provide a massive boost, but would it be enough of a boost on its own footing? They're currently well behind Texas in the computer rankings.

4) Florida's strength of schedule in the computer rankings will obviously spike up, but outside of Alabama, they might not get any help at all. The rest of the SEC is finished. Florida's key non-conference wins were Florida State, Miami (FL), and Hawaii. Florida State and Miami (FL) are also done. Meanwhile Hawaii hosts UC. If UC wins, then Florida's win over Hawaii loses some luster in the computer polls.

5) Texas' strength of schedule likely isn't changing. They beat both Oklahoma and Missouri. The rest of the Big 12 is finished. Their best non-conference win was probably Rice, and Rice's season is finished. However, Rice did lose to Tulsa, and Tulsa is playing East Carolina next week for the Conference USA championship. A win by Tulsa and Rice probably gets a slight boost in the computer rankings, which would then give Texas a very slight boost in their schedule. Additionally, a Cincinnati victory over Hawaii boosts Cincinnati up slightly in the computer polls, which then gives a bit of help to Oklahoma and the rest of the Big 12.

Now obviously we can stretch out the "Team A played Team B who played Team C who played Team D" wherever we want, and we're talking about fractions of points in the computer rankings (if that), but I have to think those fractions do exist. And since the computer polls are where Florida needs to make the biggest gains, those strength of schedule idiosynchroses become slightly relevant.

This situation would also ripple throughout the rest of the BCS too rather than just shuffling up the national title game and the other BCS bowls. If Oklahoma and Texas play in the national title game, then that opens up the door for Texas Tech to grab an at-large spot. And I'd have to think if Texas Tech is available as an at-large, then they're BCS bound over Ohio State and Boise State.

Just something to chew on ...

Highlifeman21
11-30-2008, 10:07 PM
So is Oklahoma playing Mizzou for the Big 12 Champ?

If so, I immediately became one of the biggest Mizzou fans around, hoping they win to keep Oklahoma as far from the NC as possible.

Marc D
11-30-2008, 10:17 PM
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think every BCS bowl has sold out since the system began.

These games make tons of money for both the BCS and the cities regardless of who plays. Does a football factory school like Oklahoma or Ohio State bring a huge contingent of fans? Surely.

But the game will sell out regardless of who plays, fans will travel regardless of who plays, and a lot of money will be made regardless of who plays. Unless the goal is purely profit maximization (in which case the entire system is just a sham), the BCS should be seeded by what happens on the field instead of what happens with boosters.

Now, your garden variety bowls...that's a different story entirely.

I don't know the exact data either, I would love to see it but I recall hearing a lot of groaning from BCS Bowl officials who have gotten stuck with some non traveling teams in the past or clunker matchups that no one was really interested in.

As far as the rest of it goes, like any business, it is solely about profit maximization other than the NC game. They are not seeding some type of playoff, they are trying to promote the most attractive game they can to make as much money as they can.

If you are seeding a playoff then by all means put Boise in over OSU, if you have to answer to the local Chamber of Commerce you'd be crazy to do so.

Marc D
11-30-2008, 10:18 PM
So is Oklahoma playing Mizzou for the Big 12 Champ?

If so, I immediately became one of the biggest Mizzou fans around, hoping they win to keep Oklahoma as far from the NC as possible.


Yes, its a done deal. OU vs Mizzou based on the B12 using BCS rankings as the tie breaker.

WMR
11-30-2008, 10:25 PM
I don't know the exact data either, I would love to see it but I recall hearing a lot of groaning from BCS Bowl officials who have gotten stuck with some non traveling teams in the past or clunker matchups that no one was really interested in.

As far as the rest of it goes, like any business, it is solely about profit maximization other than the NC game. They are not seeding some type of playoff, they are trying to promote the most attractive game they can to make as much money as they can.

If you are seeding a playoff then by all means put Boise in over OSU, if you have to answer to the local Chamber of Commerce you'd be crazy to do so.

The non-traveling team thing I can give you...

"Clunker matchups," however ... have there been any bigger "clunker matchups" in recent seasons than OSU vs. the SEC?

MWM
11-30-2008, 10:35 PM
I don't profess to be a college football expert, and I'll admit I only watched Penn State play 3 or 4 times this year. It's no secret I'm not a fan of the Big 10's style of play, and I usually don't watch if there's an equally compelling game from another conference on. So I'm certain there's a fair amount of bias there.

I'm not a big fan of the Big Ten style of play, either. I've been shouting that, even here, for quite some time now. I really believe they have the talent to match any other conference (the NFL draft should tell you that), but too many of the programs are stuck in the past century. It's irritating. I'm not as much a fan of a conference as a team. It's not been until on here the past few years that's I've ever really talked much about the conference. I grew up in Ohio and started watching them in 1984 when I was a kid and have been watching ever since. I don't care all that much about the conference like others do about their conference. But the factor no one ever wants to talk about that I never bring up because it's just not worth it with some of the folks here is the weather factor. When's the last time a southern team had to come up north in November or early December and have to play in Michigan or Ohio or Wisconsin. It never happens, so teams are built differently. I think this is overblown by some of the B10 coaches, but I think that's part of the reason you see so many vanilla offenses. I think they need to step into the 21st Century and stop with the 3 yards and a cloud of dust stuff.

But not liking style and not giving them credit is a different story. Outside of Ohio State, th Big Ten has fared pretty well against SEC teams in bowls.


When I did watch Penn State play, what I saw was a fairly vanilla offense that was punctuated by the occasional big play. I didn't see a lot of explosiveness from anyone on the offense, and I certainly didn't see a lot of creative scheming. That was just my impressions of them.[/quote[

That's not the offense I saw early in the year. I couldn' believe it was Penn State actually running such an offense. I was shocked. They beat Oregon State 45-14, Syracuse 55-13 (yes, I know they're a bad team, but it's still 55 points), Illinois 38-24, Wisconsin 48-7, MIchigan 46-17. Yes, I know these aren't great teams, but they're so bad that everybody's rolling in and putting up those kinds of points on them. They were playing aggressive and they looked like the real deal to me. They played scared against Ohio State and then just played bad against Iowa. That's two games. Aside from those two game, their offense looked pretty darn good.

[quote] Do they play well on both sides of the ball?

Well, there's not a ton of teams that do. No one plays defense in the Big 12. And very few teams play good defense in the SEC, with the top two teams being about the only ones.


Conference quality factors in there, but as one of many factors. I don't think anyone is saying that X team is better than Y team because X's conference is better than Y's. If they are saying that, their opinion doesn't really matter.

I think it has become one of the most important determining factors, unfortunately. I wish it weren't, but it is. USC and Penn State are being left out of the conversation for that reason.



Not for nothing, but Florida State was a Top-20 team as of last week and are still in the Top-25 in the latest BCS rankings. I'd say that qualifies as a quality road win, especially given their status as an in-state rival -- even if I do think that Florida State tends to get more "sentimental" votes than other programs that leads to them being ranked when they aren't really all that good.

Yeah, FSU is not a good football team. Talk about bad offense. Theirs is awful. They have no business in the top 25.



Texas's OOC schedule is weak, but my gosh -- look at the gauntlet they ran in the Big 12: vs. 1 Oklahoma, v. 11 Missouri, v. 6 Oklahoma State (all Ws) and then a last-second loss @ 7 Texas Tech. Same with Oklahoma, except add in TCU, Cincinnati and Kansas for them.

True. That's a tough stretch, but I don't think Oklahoma State and Missouri are as good as they're made out to be. Oklahoma State has been given all this credit, but they lost all three of the games to Texas, TTU, and Oklahoma. And they lost by 36 to texas Tech and 20 to Oklahoma. Mizzou is also a decent team, but they aren't good enough to warrant great accolades for beating them. I'm not saying they're pushovers, but the only teams in the Big 12 that play any defense at all are Texas and Oklahoma, kind of like the Big Ten and offense.


Penn State and USC both have quality OOC wins (Oregon State for Penn and Ohio State for USC), but both are at home vs. trans-continental opponents. Teams that travel cross-country to play a game, generally, don't play well and end up at a massive disadvantage. They're good wins, but you've gotta take both with a grain of salt, IMO.

Now I'm in compete disagreement with this. A grain of salt? I don't think so. Having out of conference wins like this is something very few teams have. I think they should weigh heavily in the discussion.



So who do you reward? The team that plays tough OOC opponents but plays in a dog conference? The team from the powerhouse conference that dominates but plays no one from the outside? Everything is fluid every year, and there's no way to weigh what should matter most in a given year.

See, you're proving my point here. It's "powerhouse" conferences versus "dog" conferences. Why don't we look at the teams. It' my belief that the difference in conferences isn't so great that it should be perceives with such a distinction.


This year, does the Big 12's plethora of top-flight teams offset the weak OOC schedule from some of their squads? Do we excuse a weak PAC 10 or weak Big 10 because it's outside of Penn State's or USC's control and look to their quality OOC wins?

I think the Big 12 is the toughest conference here, but I don't see the "plethora" you're talking about. I love watching Texas Tech play, but we saw what can happen when they play against a team that actually plays defense. Oklahoma completly shut them down. And they had to resort to a 4th quarter comeback to beat Baylor. I think they're deserving to be ranked where they are, but I question if they're capable of consistently playing with top tier teams. Maybe they can, but I'm not convinced. They'd have to outscore everyone.

I think this conversation highlights just how arbitrary and subjective this whole conversation is. You weigh what you see based on your pre-determined biases. I do the same. So does everyone else involved from the media to the fans to the coaches. It's just a moronic system.

MWM
11-30-2008, 10:41 PM
No way will Oklahoma and Texas play in the national championship. If Florida beats Alabama, they will move up to #1 in every human poll. Just like we saw in 2006, voters will not allow a rematch. The winner of the SEC title game is in.

Cyclone792
11-30-2008, 10:57 PM
No way will Oklahoma and Texas play in the national championship. If Florida beats Alabama, they will move up to #1 in every human poll. Just like we saw in 2006, voters will not allow a rematch. The winner of the SEC title game is in.

I'm 99 percent in agreement with you, though that's down from the 100 percent that I was before today. The only reason I believe that door has a slight crack in it is because it seemed apparent to me that many voters wanted Texas over Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game, but it still wasn't enough to offset the computer rankings. It was just telling that Texas picked up votes on Oklahoma in both polls despite the fact that Texas beat a lowly team at home while Oklahoma beat a very tough, ranked team on the road. That's going to have to flip-flop next week, with those voters who bumped Texas over Oklahoma reversing themselves.

It's one of those things that even if the voters try to bump Florida up, will they have enough of a push to offset the computer polls? I'm 99 percent sure they will, but not 100 percent now. The massive gap in the computer polls is what they have to fight, and even with Florida's solid win at Florida State yesterday, they didn't close the computer poll gap on Texas by a whole lot (Florida suffered some major SOS setbacks this weekend which hindered their computer poll rankings).

MWM
11-30-2008, 11:16 PM
Personally, I don't care if we have two teams from the same conference playing for the national championship if they're the two most deserving teams. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but until their is a playoff, I think it's unfair to penalize what might be the second best team in the country because they happen to play in a conference with the best team.

LoganBuck
11-30-2008, 11:22 PM
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think every BCS bowl has sold out since the system began.

These games make tons of money for both the BCS and the cities regardless of who plays. Does a football factory school like Oklahoma or Ohio State bring a huge contingent of fans? Surely.

But the game will sell out regardless of who plays, fans will travel regardless of who plays, and a lot of money will be made regardless of who plays. Unless the goal is purely profit maximization (in which case the entire system is just a sham), the BCS should be seeded by what happens on the field instead of what happens with boosters.

Now, your garden variety bowls...that's a different story entirely.

These games are pushed by advertising dollars, and money spent by fan bases in the local communities. I know people involved in the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. They are terrified that Utah may be coming, again. They have a lot of Mormons who are fans. Mormons don't drink alcohol. They don't spend money in nightclubs and bars. Alcohol is a high margin product in the restaurant business. They are terrified. They need the bump from the bowl game.

dabvu2498
11-30-2008, 11:47 PM
What if Bama barely loses to Florida? Wouldnt they have as good an argument as any of the other 1 loss teams? I love it. All the disagreements and all the games havent even been played yet!

guttle11
11-30-2008, 11:56 PM
Personally, I don't care if we have two teams from the same conference playing for the national championship if they're the two most deserving teams. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but until their is a playoff, I think it's unfair to penalize what might be the second best team in the country because they happen to play in a conference with the best team.

I'm the opposite. With only 2 teams getting a shot to be the champion, it's hard for me to say any team that didn't win its conference is more deserving than one that did. Nebraska playing Miami for the title despite not winning the Big 12 North was the biggest travesty of the BCS, IMO.

guttle11
11-30-2008, 11:59 PM
These games are pushed by advertising dollars, and money spent by fan bases in the local communities. I know people involved in the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. They are terrified that Utah may be coming, again. They have a lot of Mormons who are fans. Mormons don't drink alcohol. They don't spend money in nightclubs and bars. Alcohol is a high margin product in the restaurant business. They are terrified. They need the bump from the bowl game.

Yep. I saw somewhere (might have been here) that Ohio State had approximately 100,000 fans in Austin, Texas for a regular season game in 2006. That's mind-boggling. When the Bucks come to your town hotels, bars, restaurants, and tourist sites are banking.

D-Man
12-01-2008, 12:05 AM
I fully anticipate that OU will lay another postseason egg next weekend, and then the BCS will be in a real bind.

P.S. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Big 12 shredded in the bowls. None of those teams have anything resembling a good defense.

D-Man
12-01-2008, 12:19 AM
I fully anticipate that OU will lay another postseason egg next weekend, and then the BCS will be in a real bind.

P.S. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Big 12 shredded in the bowls. None of those teams have anything resembling a good defense.

P.P.S. Of the Big Four in the Big 12 South, I count two legitimate out-of-conference wins among the four of them. . . And Oklahoma has both of those wins (UC and TCU). This strikes me as a conference that has padded its stats and wins as a collective unit. Think Ohio State/Michigan, c. 2006.

Marc D
12-01-2008, 12:27 AM
The non-traveling team thing I can give you...

"Clunker matchups," however ... have there been any bigger "clunker matchups" in recent seasons than OSU vs. the SEC?


again, fan perspective vs business perspective.

Its easy to look back in hindsight and say the games were boring because OSU was blown out. I guarantee you as a Bowl game promoter you would rather have OSU vs another big time school than say the Orange Bowl's potential UC vs BC matchup. Not a swipe at UC or BC, just economics. Texas/ND/OSU/PSU type schools just have much larger fanbases, they travel like mad and spend a ton of money.

Like the poster said above, if you ever hear the chatter from people responsible for putting these games on they dread the possibility of getting things like the Pitt/Utah game a few years back. They could care less who wins, they just want a lot of people to show up to watch and spend money.

MWM
12-01-2008, 12:33 AM
What if Bama barely loses to Florida? Wouldnt they have as good an argument as any of the other 1 loss teams? I love it. All the disagreements and all the games havent even been played yet!

Absolutely. They'd have one loss to a good team. Why should the timing of that loss matter?

Caveat Emperor
12-01-2008, 12:55 AM
Absolutely. They'd have one loss to a good team. Why should the timing of that loss matter?

Lloyd Carr has been wondering that for 2 years, I'll bet.

paintmered
12-01-2008, 01:02 AM
The interesting thing to me is the reason Oklahoma is in the Big 12 title game is due to the computers. Texas actually made up ground this week in the human polls.

The reasons? Kansas beat Missouri. Texas had beaten Missouri earlier while Oklahoma beat Kansas earlier this season. Also, Oklahoma has two OOC wins over top-15 teams while Texas has none. It just so happens that now the computers have Oklahoma as the best team in the country.

The difference between Oklahoma and Texas wasn't settled on their field of play. Instead, it was settled on the field of play of their earlier opponents. Had Missouri taken care of business on Saturday, we'd likely have a different outcome.

Marc D
12-01-2008, 01:07 AM
The interesting thing to me is the reason Oklahoma is in the Big 12 title game is due to the computers. Texas actually made up ground this week in the human polls.

The reasons? Kansas beat Missouri. Texas had beaten Missouri earlier while Oklahoma beat Kansas earlier this season. Also, Oklahoma has two OOC wins over top-15 teams while Texas has none. It just so happens that now the computers have Oklahoma as the best team in the country.

The difference between Oklahoma and Texas wasn't settled on their field of play. Instead, it was settled on the field of play of their earlier opponents. Had Missouri taken care of business on Saturday, we'd likely have a different outcome.


Indeed.

Mizzou taking care of business might still come into play. The B12 CCG has had a lot of upsets over the years.

MWM
12-01-2008, 08:47 AM
The interesting thing to me is the reason Oklahoma is in the Big 12 title game is due to the computers. Texas actually made up ground this week in the human polls.

The reasons? Kansas beat Missouri. Texas had beaten Missouri earlier while Oklahoma beat Kansas earlier this season. Also, Oklahoma has two OOC wins over top-15 teams while Texas has none. It just so happens that now the computers have Oklahoma as the best team in the country.

The difference between Oklahoma and Texas wasn't settled on their field of play. Instead, it was settled on the field of play of their earlier opponents. Had Missouri taken care of business on Saturday, we'd likely have a different outcome.

But couldn't you make the same argument about Texas Tech over Texas?

Either we look at things beyone the head to head game or we don't. I don't think it's equitable to call out the head to head for Texas Oklahomas without looking at the other games while doing the exact opposite for Texas Tech.

Chip R
12-01-2008, 10:43 AM
But couldn't you make the same argument about Texas Tech over Texas?

Either we look at things beyone the head to head game or we don't. I don't think it's equitable to call out the head to head for Texas Oklahomas without looking at the other games while doing the exact opposite for Texas Tech.


Texas Tech's problem was that they were initially ranked so low compared to Texas and Oklahoma. When they eventually lost, they took a greater fall that Texas and Oklahoma did when they lost. Of course, under a playoff, Texas Tech may not even make the field unless you have several at large entries.

Highlifeman21
12-01-2008, 12:42 PM
Texas > OU +10
Texas Tech > Texas +6
OU > Texas Tech +44

So basically OU is rewarded for blowing out Texas Tech, who barely beat Texas (in the last play of regulation), and it's almost an after thought that Texas beat OU by 10 (since that happened back on 10/11...)

I just don't get it.

Essentially, Texas Tech becomes worthless in the equation, and that's why OU is ranked ahead of Texas?

Chip R
12-01-2008, 01:58 PM
Texas > OU +10
Texas Tech > Texas +6
OU > Texas Tech +44

So basically OU is rewarded for blowing out Texas Tech, who barely beat Texas (in the last play of regulation), and it's almost an after thought that Texas beat OU by 10 (since that happened back on 10/11...)

I just don't get it.

Essentially, Texas Tech becomes worthless in the equation, and that's why OU is ranked ahead of Texas?


The lesson is, don't lose late in the season.

Hoosier Red
12-01-2008, 02:48 PM
If you can figure out a way to weigh all this kinda stuff and make some list of factors and their importance then more power to you. I don't think it's possible under the system we have now -- because apparently there are computers out there that think Utah is a better team than Florida, which is just unfathomable.

I think computers in general get a bad rap because of a misunderstanding of what they do. No computer tells you who is a better team, they tell you what team has proven more.

For instance, if you took this Alabama team and said they played the bottom 12 teams in division 1-A, they'd still be as good of a team as they are now, but they wouldn't have proven anything.

So the computers don't necessarily think Utah is better than Florida, they've just proven more. That's at least an argument you can start from.

On the other hand, voters for the Harris and Coaches' polls get themselves in trouble with the mental gymnastics of who has "proven more" that's why you get the inconsistency in logic from one year or one week to the next.

The BCS as a whole would work a lot better if the pollsters stuck to trying to figure out who is the best team, while the computers decided who most deserves to make the BCS title game.

IslandRed
12-01-2008, 03:07 PM
Texas > OU +10
Texas Tech > Texas +6
OU > Texas Tech +44

So basically OU is rewarded for blowing out Texas Tech, who barely beat Texas (in the last play of regulation), and it's almost an after thought that Texas beat OU by 10 (since that happened back on 10/11...)

I just don't get it.

Essentially, Texas Tech becomes worthless in the equation, and that's why OU is ranked ahead of Texas?

I think it's a bigger flaw in logic to say, Texas Tech is out of the discussion, so let's focus only on the head-to-head between OU and Texas. It's a three-way tie, not a two-way tie, and they all have identical records, they lost to each other in round-robin fashion. So you have to go somewhere other than head-to-heads to figure it out... but if you did choose a head-to-head to consider, "biggest butt-whooping administered" isn't a bad place to start.

Chip R
12-01-2008, 05:46 PM
Mike Leach thinks ties should be broken by the respective programs' graduation rates.

http://www.doubleazone.com/2008/12/texas_tech_mike_leach_bcs_texas_oklahoma.php

Highlifeman21
12-01-2008, 05:55 PM
I think it's a bigger flaw in logic to say, Texas Tech is out of the discussion, so let's focus only on the head-to-head between OU and Texas. It's a three-way tie, not a two-way tie, and they all have identical records, they lost to each other in round-robin fashion. So you have to go somewhere other than head-to-heads to figure it out... but if you did choose a head-to-head to consider, "biggest butt-whooping administered" isn't a bad place to start.

Their current tie-breaker is the BCS standing, so that's why Oklahoma faces Missouri for the Big 12 Champ.

I don't think Texas Tech should be out of it, but apparently them getting taken behind the woodshed by Oklahoma (at Oklahoma, let's not forget that) makes them beating Texas in Lubbock moot.

The only logic I can see is that Texas beat Oklahoma at a neutral site, Texas lost at Texas Tech, while Oklahoma beat Texas Tech (badly) in Norman, OK.... which essentially now creates the scenario that Oklahoma has a quality loss to Texas, while Texas' loss to Texas Tech is not a quality loss due to the fact that Oklahoma spanked Texas Tech.

Do I agree with it? Absolutely not, but that's the only way that I see how Texas Tech is easily dismissed from this discussion, and Oklahoma pole vaults Texas only due to the fact they lost earlier in the season to Texas than Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma.

Like Chip said, losing late in the season matters.

... and apparently in this case, Texas beating Oklahoma doesn't matter, b/c it was in the beginning of October...


I think the biggest travesity is the Big 12's use of BCS standings as a tie-breaker.

Hoosier Red
12-01-2008, 06:05 PM
It is the fifth tier tie breaker. It just so happens that three way ties create real headaches.

Roy Tucker
12-01-2008, 06:11 PM
It is the fifth tier tie breaker. It just so happens that three way ties create real headaches.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1546006&DB_OEM_ID=10410



Tiebreaker Procedures
Release: 07/31/2008
by Big12Sports.com

Divisional Champion: The (eligible) team with the best winning-percentage of all divisional members in its eight conference games is declared the divisional champion and representative to the Dr Pepper Big 12 Conference Football Championship Game. A team ineligible under NCAA or Big 12 rules for postseason (bowl) competition shall not compete in the Championship Game.

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

1. If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
2. If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative:

1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of fi nish (4, 5 and 6)
4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents;
5. The highest ranked team in the fi rst Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative
6. The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative
7. The representative will be chosen by draw.

Roy Tucker
12-01-2008, 06:14 PM
Mike Leach thinks ties should be broken by the respective programs' graduation rates.

http://www.doubleazone.com/2008/12/texas_tech_mike_leach_bcs_texas_oklahoma.php

I heard Texas Tech was #1, Texas was #11, and Oklahoma #12.

Roy Tucker
12-01-2008, 06:26 PM
The way I see it, if Florida beats Alabama and Oklahoma beats Missouri, you're going to have 7 11-1 teams (Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC, Penn State, Texas Tech) and 2 12-0 (Utah, Boise State) teams that have pretty legit claims to playing in the BCS NC game. Ho ho.

The BCS will have to apply all kinds of computer algorithms (on one hand) and polls governed by some tortured and flawed carbon-based unit logic (on the other hand) to come up with its 2 top teams. Accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth of the excluded teams.

I think a playoff system would be more fair than the existing system. But I also have to say, all the BCS opinion-laden discussions are pretty interesting and impassioned and may be more entertaining than a playoff system.

*BaseClogger*
12-01-2008, 06:28 PM
A +1 system would go a long way towards figuring out if Boise State and Utah are for real...

Roy Tucker
12-01-2008, 06:56 PM
I thought the plus one system just seeded the top 4 teams. #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 and then the top 2 re-seeded teams play in the +1 game. Which would leave out Utah and Boise St.

But then, I could be mistaken.

*BaseClogger*
12-01-2008, 06:58 PM
I thought the plus one system just seeded the top 4 teams. #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 and then the top 2 re-seeded teams play in the +1 game. Which would leave out Utah and Boise St.

But then, I could be mistaken.

I think you're right. The +1 system I am referring to, and the one I prefer most, is going back to the classic bowl style tie ins. Then, a week after those games are played, a separate National Championship at a rotating BCS Bowl site...

dougdirt
12-01-2008, 07:11 PM
I really hope Florida beats Alabama.... just so we can have two undefeated top 10 teams and neither will be playing for the National Championship. Thats always fun.

BuckeyeRed27
12-01-2008, 07:40 PM
I have always leaned away from a playoff system mostly because of the cheapening of the regular season argument. However I think as long as it was limited to 4 or 8 teams you could still have a great season with lots of do or die games and have a championship system that is a little more fair.
This year if you had an 8 team it would probably be the six conference champs and that leaves 2 spots for SEC loser, Texas, Utah, Texas Tech, and Boise State. Now the conversation is going to shift to well does Cincinnati or BC really deserve a spot over Texas or whoever, but the point is that almost all of the games that really mattered this season still do. It might take a little heat off of the SEC game since I think they would both still make it this year but that's it. Ohio State vs. Penn State still huge. All of those great big 10 games still huge. Oregon State losing to Oregon would be even bigger as before they were only playing for the Rose Bowl and now they just lost their shot at a National Championship.

Highlifeman21
12-01-2008, 09:17 PM
I really hope Florida beats Alabama.... just so we can have two undefeated top 10 teams and neither will be playing for the National Championship. Thats always fun.

But would you want to see Boise State play Utah for the NC?

MWM
12-01-2008, 11:32 PM
The BCS as a whole would work a lot better if the pollsters stuck to trying to figure out who is the best team, while the computers decided who most deserves to make the BCS title game.

Very well put. I agree. It would still be a mess, but it would be less so.

MWM
12-01-2008, 11:33 PM
I think it's a bigger flaw in logic to say, Texas Tech is out of the discussion, so let's focus only on the head-to-head between OU and Texas. It's a three-way tie, not a two-way tie, and they all have identical records, they lost to each other in round-robin fashion. So you have to go somewhere other than head-to-heads to figure it out... but if you did choose a head-to-head to consider, "biggest butt-whooping administered" isn't a bad place to start.

Great summation. I agree.

dougdirt
12-02-2008, 12:50 AM
But would you want to see Boise State play Utah for the NC?

I am not sure, buts its entirely possible that we will see three undefeated teams in the top 10 at years end and not a single one of them will have played for the national title. Something needs to be done though.

Highlifeman21
12-02-2008, 01:30 AM
I am not sure, buts its entirely possible that we will see three undefeated teams in the top 10 at years end and not a single one of them will have played for the national title. Something needs to be done though.

Who would be the 3rd undefeated team?

Caveat Emperor
12-02-2008, 01:35 AM
Who would be the 3rd undefeated team?

Ball State.

MWM
12-02-2008, 01:45 AM
Yeah, it is complete rubbish that a team like Utah or Boise State have zero chance whatsoever to ever play for the national title. Would they win? Probably not very often, if ever. But every once in a while, one of those teams might just pull off a major upset and win it all. But it irritates me to all end that they really have no chance. Why not just separate the 6 BCS conferences from the rest of college football? That's effectively what they're doing. Utah won in Ann Arobr (yes, not a great accomplishment this year), beat Oregon State, beat TCU, and beat a darn good BYU team by a large margin. What more could they possible do? Nothing. They scheduled a big time OOC game on the road. It just so happens that this is about the only year where beating Michigan in the Big House doesn't mean a whole lot. It's totally unfair that the national title is limited to 6 conferences.

Cyclone792
12-02-2008, 09:18 AM
Yeah, it is complete rubbish that a team like Utah or Boise State have zero chance whatsoever to ever play for the national title. Would they win? Probably not very often, if ever. But every once in a while, one of those teams might just pull off a major upset and win it all. But it irritates me to all end that they really have no chance. Why not just separate the 6 BCS conferences from the rest of college football? That's effectively what they're doing. Utah won in Ann Arobr (yes, not a great accomplishment this year), beat Oregon State, beat TCU, and beat a darn good BYU team by a large margin. What more could they possible do? Nothing. They scheduled a big time OOC game on the road. It just so happens that this is about the only year where beating Michigan in the Big House doesn't mean a whole lot. It's totally unfair that the national title is limited to 6 conferences.

I absolutely agree.

This is another reason why it continually irritates me to see power conference schools constantly schedule weaker schools. There's a disconnect here that I just don't like. If the power schools want to play the small schools, then it's only fair to give the small schools a viable chance to play for and win the national championship. If they want to make the national championship available to only BCS schools, then all the non-conference schedules should be 100 percent BCS schools.

Until college football can come up with a viable playoff solution to this, their postseason system will always be well behind college hoops and March Madness.

If the NCAA hoops tourney took the BCS route, then they'd effectively eliminate programs such as Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier from even having a chance at the national championship (and up until a few years ago, teams such as Cincinnati, Louisville, and Marquette fell into this category too). It's absolutely absurd to think about that happening, which is why it's more mind boggling how a football program such as Utah or Boise State has no chance to play for their own national championship.

WMR
12-02-2008, 09:23 AM
I absolutely agree.

This is another reason why it continually irritates me to see power conference schools constantly schedule weaker schools. There's a disconnect here that I just don't like. If the power schools want to play the small schools, then it's only fair to give the small schools a viable chance to play for and win the national championship. If they want to make the national championship available to only BCS schools, then all the non-conference schedules should be 100 percent BCS schools.

Until college football can come up with a viable playoff solution to this, their postseason system will always be well behind college hoops and March Madness.

If the NCAA hoops tourney took the BCS route, then they'd effectively eliminate programs such as Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier from even having a chance at the national championship (and up until a few years ago, teams such as Cincinnati, Louisville, and Marquette fell into this category too). It's absolutely absurd to think about that happening, which is why it's more mind boggling how a football program such as Utah or Boise State has no chance to play for their own national championship.

So you're calling for a change to the system, right?

Because as things currently stand, I think it would be ludicrous for someone to make demands on a school to schedule so-and-so opponent just for the sake of "fair play" or "giving everybody a chance." It is a school's perogative to schedule whomever they want.

It isn't Ohio State's duty to schedule home and home (or ANY) games with Cincinnati, just like it isn't Florida's duty to schedule home and home (or ANY) games with Florida International etc. etc.

Calling for a change to the system is fine but there has been a lot of castigation in this thread towards individual programs and their scheduling decisions and I find that rather silly.

MWM
12-02-2008, 09:59 AM
If they want to make the national championship available to only BCS schools, then all the non-conference schedules should be 100 percent BCS schools.


That's a great point.

Cyclone792
12-02-2008, 10:07 AM
So you're calling for a change to the system, right?

Because as things currently stand, I think it would be ludicrous for someone to make demands on a school to schedule so-and-so opponent just for the sake of "fair play" or "giving everybody a chance." It is a school's perogative to schedule whomever they want.

It isn't Ohio State's duty to schedule home and home (or ANY) games with Cincinnati, just like it isn't Florida's duty to schedule home and home (or ANY) games with Florida International etc. etc.

Calling for a change to the system is fine but there has been a lot of castigation in this thread towards individual programs and their scheduling decisions and I find that rather silly.

Yes, I'm calling for a change in football.

It's not at all fair to give a certain segment of schools zero chance to win a national championship, and that's how the current system is set up. And honestly when the haves load up on have nots in September - teams that have zero chance of competing for a national championship even if they go undefeated - it then becomes a double-standard.

You want to load up on the cupcakes? Fine, but you better give them a legitimate shot to compete for the national championship.

Basketball gives them this chance; football doesn't. That's my big problem with football.

Chip R
12-02-2008, 10:12 AM
But would you want to see Boise State play Utah for the NC?


So what? If you want to see fixed results, watch pro wrestling. If they wanted to make things so as many people as possible would watch the title game, Notre Dame would be in there every year.

MWM
12-02-2008, 10:12 AM
Cyclone's right. These lesser programs are basically prostitutes for the larger programs. Sure, we'll use them to fill up our coffers with early season home games. We'll even pay them a pretty good sum to do it. But don't ask to actually compete with us for any kind of title. That's out of the question.

This year it's completely definitive that non-BCS schools aren't allowed to play for the National Championship. They ought to at least make if official and put in the BCS rules.

WMR
12-02-2008, 10:12 AM
Yes, I'm calling for a change in football.

It's not at all fair to give a certain segment of schools zero chance to win a national championship, and that's how the current system is set up. And honestly when the haves load up on have nots in September - teams that have zero chance of competing for a national championship even if they go undefeated - it then becomes a double-standard.

You want to load up on the cupcakes? Fine, but you better give them a legitimate shot to compete for the national championship.

Basketball gives them this chance; football doesn't. That's my big problem with football.

That's cool. I'm fine with what you're calling for.

Like certain recruiting practices, however, until they make a rule against it, it's not really fair to get upset at coaches/teams/ADs for doing it that way. (Not implying that you were doing that, BTW.)

MWM
12-02-2008, 10:16 AM
This is how ridiculous it is. ESPN listed their 27 greatest bowl games of the past 30 years and asked the readers to rank them. I went in there looking for the Boise State - Oklahoma game from a couple of years ago. I couldn't find it. It wasn't there. So either they're saying that wasn't one of the 27 greatest bowl games, which is ludicrous (i think it was the very best), or they simply forgot about that game because it was Boise State.

Cyclone792
12-02-2008, 10:20 AM
That's cool. I'm fine with what you're calling for.

Like certain recruiting practices, however, until they make a rule against it, it's not really fair to get upset at coaches/teams/ADs for doing it that way. (Not implying that you were doing that, BTW.)

They'll never make a rule against scheduling the cupcakes, but what I'd like to see is a playoff system set up that gives those schools a chance at the national championship.

You're a huge UK hoops fan, I know. Ten years ago when UK won their NCAA title, they beat Utah. Utah's a WAC school that has no shot at a football championship this season despite going undefeated with a tough schedule in a conference that actually was pretty solid this year. College hoops gave Utah a chance to win a national championship in 1998, and they won five NCAA tourney games to reach the title game against your Wildcats. A football program such as Utah this year deserves some type of chance to win its respective national championship just like their basketball program had 10 years ago.

WMR
12-02-2008, 10:23 AM
They'll never make a rule against scheduling the cupcakes, but what I'd like to see is a playoff system set up that gives those schools a chance at the national championship.

You're a huge UK hoops fan, I know. Ten years ago when UK won their NCAA title, they beat Utah. Utah's a WAC school that has no shot at a football championship this season despite going undefeated with a tough schedule in a conference that actually was pretty solid this year. College hoops gave Utah a chance to win a national championship in 1998, and they won five NCAA tourney games to reach the title game against your Wildcats. A football program such as Utah this year deserves some type of chance to win its respective national championship just like their basketball program had 10 years ago.

I'm with you, man. You make very salient points.

HeatherC1212
12-02-2008, 12:10 PM
This is how ridiculous it is. ESPN listed their 27 greatest bowl games of the past 30 years and asked the readers to rank them. I went in there looking for the Boise State - Oklahoma game from a couple of years ago. I couldn't find it. It wasn't there. So either they're saying that wasn't one of the 27 greatest bowl games, which is ludicrous (i think it was the very best), or they simply forgot about that game because it was Boise State.

Seriously?! :eek: Wow, that game was incredible from start to finish and the fact that it wasn't even mentioned shows how little some fans pay attention. That was one of my favorite games to watch that season and we can't be the only two people who remember that game. :eek:

The BCS needs to either give everyone a chance to win the national title or put it in the rules that some conferences are going to be excluded from the chance because it's getting worse and worse every year to figure who's going to play for the national title. :thumbdown

WMR
12-02-2008, 12:23 PM
Heather: Off-topic post here... I took my sister to a Reds game this past season and she fell in love with Votto. She thought he was sooo cute! :D

They have a segment where you can text a message to be put up on the billboard... I surreptitiously got out my cellphone and texted "Votto will you marry me? - Jenna."

It was very funny. :D

HeatherC1212
12-02-2008, 02:40 PM
Heather: Off-topic post here... I took my sister to a Reds game this past season and she fell in love with Votto. She thought he was sooo cute! :D

They have a segment where you can text a message to be put up on the billboard... I surreptitiously got out my cellphone and texted "Votto will you marry me? - Jenna."

It was very funny. :D

That is a riot but what's even funnier is that I think I was at that game! :laugh: I remember seeing something like that posted during the text message thing and I started laughing wondering how many women would do that since Joey is a very good looking guy. I'm sure it happened more than a few times but that would be hilarious if I was at that same game! :thumbup:

He's too young for me though, darn it, LOL ;) :p:

Marc D
12-03-2008, 12:50 AM
A link for anyone intersted to a Dispatch article with some numbers regarding the tv ratings of the 42 BCS Bwl games that have been played to date.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2008/12/02/osu_fb02.ART_ART_12-02-08_C1_99C3OBM.html?sid=101

It seems the games involving non-BCS schools have indeed gotten much lower tv ratings than the normal BCS games.

Jack Burton
12-06-2008, 05:12 PM
Big game about to start, like to see bama put a hurtin' on tebow. Take him out of heisman discussion.

OnBaseMachine
12-06-2008, 05:19 PM
Big game about to start, like to see bama put a hurtin' on tebow. Take him out of heisman discussion.

He's not even in my top three or four. Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, Graham Harrell, and Michael Crabtree are all more deserving than Tebow, IMO.

WMR
12-06-2008, 05:22 PM
The Heisman is going to one of the Big 12 QBs this year.

OnBaseMachine
12-06-2008, 07:39 PM
Jahvid Best of Cal ran for 311 yards on only 19 carries today. That's an average of 16.4 yards per carry. Amazing. He also had 4 rushing TD's. Tomlinson holds the Division I-A rushing record with 406 yards on 43 carries, 24 more carries than Best had today. He may have broke the record if had he ran the ball a few more times.

BuckeyeRed27
12-06-2008, 08:22 PM
Well looks like Florida is going to get it done. We'll see what happens with the BCS but should get them past Texas.

What a mess though. Assuming Oklahoma wins you have:
Florida (loss to Ole Miss)
Oklahoma (loss to Texas)
Texas (loss to Texas Tech)
Penn State (loss to Iowa)
USC (loss to Oregon State)
Texas Tech (loss to Oklahoma)
Alabama (loss to Florida)
and undefeated Utah (don't even get me started on Boise State)

joshnky
12-06-2008, 08:24 PM
Jahvid Best of Cal ran for 311 yards on only 19 carries today. That's an average of 16.4 yards per carry. Amazing. He also had 4 rushing TD's. Tomlinson holds the Division I-A rushing record with 406 yards on 43 carries, 24 more carries than Best had today. He may have broke the record if had he ran the ball a few more times.

I know you're a big Pac10 fan but its hard to be too impressed considering the competition (Washington). Excellent game but thats an awful team.

OnBaseMachine
12-06-2008, 09:02 PM
I know you're a big Pac10 fan but its hard to be too impressed considering the competition (Washington). Excellent game but thats an awful team.

I don't like Cal but I thought 311 yards on 19 carries was very impressive. I don't care how bad the competition is, that's impressive IMO.

Caveat Emperor
12-06-2008, 09:22 PM
The Heisman is going to one of the Big 12 QBs this year.

Tebow made a strong argument tonight, but if Oklahoma wins the Big 12, I don't see how you can give the award to anyone other than Sam Bradford.

MWM
12-06-2008, 09:47 PM
I hate the fact that the Heisman has become an award almost exclusively for QBs. Reggie Bush was so exceptional his last year, that it was hard not to give it to him, but for the most part, it takes something exceptional for someone other than a QB to win. I'm not suggesting that this year Bradford, Harrell, and Tebow aren't worthy candidates, because they are. But there are others. My vote would go to Crabtree if I had one. My second place would go to Bradford. I think he's been the most outstanding QB and by a good margin. I think I saw on TV that he currently has something like 30 TD passes more than the the next QB in history through their sophomore year. That's impressive. This year, other than Crabtree, the QBs are probably most deserving. But anymore, they're about the only ones who get considered.

I think Julio Jones might have a chance to be the most outstanding player in college football next year. He's a beast. Right now, I think he's the second best receiver in the country behind Crabtree. Masaquoi is also a pretty outstanding player.

redsfandan
12-07-2008, 08:49 AM
.... The BCS needs to either give everyone a chance to win the national title or put it in the rules that some conferences are going to be excluded from the chance because it's getting worse and worse every year to figure who's going to play for the national title. :thumbdown

imo, it won't be 'fair' for every team that wants to win the national title unless there are playoffs. how a team is ranked at the end of the season shouldn't be decided by a computer or by a writer that could have a bias. it should be decided on the field.

edit: btw, congrats to UC on the win over Hawaii. with the ball state loss UC should pick up a spot. one more win and they'll finish in the top 10 and that's alot better than anyone could've hoped for.

Cyclone792
12-07-2008, 01:50 PM
Jeff Sagarin's computer rankings are already out, and if his rankings are a sign of things to come, we may have some serious BCS controversy flaring up:

1) Oklahoma
2) Texas
3) Texas Tech
4) Florida
5) Utah
6) Alabama
7) USC
8) Boise State
9) TCU
10) Penn State
11) Oklahoma State
12) Georgia Tech
13) Virginia Tech
14) Cincinnati
15) Ohio State

Texas will get 24 points in the JS rankings while Florida gets 22 points, though Florida did move up in the JS rankings. Last week Texas received 24 points while Florida received 20 points.

WMR
12-07-2008, 01:59 PM
There's no way it's not UF v. OU for the championship, right?

Cyclone792
12-07-2008, 02:03 PM
There's no way it's not UF v. OU for the championship, right?

One would think it'll be Oklahoma vs. Florida, though stranger things have happened. UC's comeback win in Hawaii last night didn't do Florida any favors in the computer polls though, and that's where the Gators were lagging behind in last week's rankings.

Then again, the Orange Bowl is already posting Oklahoma/Florida National Championship gear. :lol:

http://fedexorangebowlmerch.com/2007A//catalog/index.php?cPath=84

KronoRed
12-07-2008, 02:05 PM
There's no way it's not UF v. OU for the championship, right?

Don't be suprised if it's a rematch of a game that was dull the first time around.

Cyclone792
12-07-2008, 02:08 PM
Coaches poll is out:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm

Oklahoma is #1 with 1,482 points, Florida is #2 with 1,481 points, and Texas is #3 with 1,408 points. Florida has a Coaches poll BCS % of .9711 while Texas has a Coaches poll BCS % of .9233.

Roy Tucker
12-07-2008, 03:13 PM
Tebow reminds me of Archie Griffin in a way. Phenomenal college player and dominates at that level. Just not sure how he'll project into the pros.

WMR
12-07-2008, 03:24 PM
Tebow reminds me of Archie Griffin in a way. Phenomenal college player and dominates at that level. Just not sure how he'll project into the pros.

Roy, I am extremely interested to see what happens to Tebow at the NFL level.

I don't see him having the skill set to succeed in the NFL as a QB, but it will be fascinating to watch.

I'm also intrigued to see where he will be drafted. Will he stay for his Senior season? One would think so.

Jack Burton
12-07-2008, 03:37 PM
Tebow will be a bust in the NFL. Championship game should be OU vs. Texas, just to spite the rabid Florida fans. Also, Bradford wins the Heisman. God Bless.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 03:52 PM
Tebow will be a bust in the NFL. Championship game should be OU vs. Texas, just to spite the rabid Florida fans. Also, Bradford wins the Heisman. God Bless.

Semantics I know but I consider someone a bust if they were expected to be good and flopped. I don't think anyone outside of a few UF zealots actualy thinks Tebow can be an NFL QB. I agree with your main point though, no way will his game ever translate to the NFL unless its at safety or Hback, something along those lines.

The biggest question I have about Tebow in the NFL is will Gary Danielson sit with the rest of the team wives if Tebow makes a team or continue broadcasting SEC games AT-After Tim?

Seriously, I didn't think anyone could make me question Herbie's devotion to Pete Carol and USC as the most embarrassing man crush in CFB but Danielson took a big step forward yesterday.

MWM
12-07-2008, 04:08 PM
Tebow's a really good player, but with other QBs that have played in college football, it's tough to distinguish how much is him versus the system. For years, no one has given Texas Tech QBs much credit at all because they say anyone can put up numbers in that system. I don't doubt that Tebow is a really good QB in several different systems, but I think there are a lot of QBs out there who could really thrive in that offense.

BuckeyeRed27
12-07-2008, 04:09 PM
Seriously, I didn't think anyone could make me question Herbie's devotion to Pete Carol and USC as the most embarrassing man crush in CFB but Danielson took a big step forward yesterday.

Danielson was a joke last night. He completely ruined a great football game with his shameless promotion of Tebow. We all know he's a great player. There is no reason to make stupid comments like being Bronco Nagurski, or being the greatest college football player ever.

OnBaseMachine
12-07-2008, 05:29 PM
Danielson was a joke last night. He completely ruined a great football game with his shameless promotion of Tebow. We all know he's a great player. There is no reason to make stupid comments like being Bronco Nagurski, or being the greatest college football player ever.

Agreed 100%.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 05:43 PM
Danielson was a joke last night. He completely ruined a great football game with his shameless promotion of Tebow. We all know he's a great player. There is no reason to make stupid comments like being Bronco Nagurski, or being the greatest college football player ever.


Oh boy, missed that one. I muted it shortly after he started gushing about Tim's superhuman strength in pre game warm ups. In case anyone missed it I am being 100% serious, he spent a solid 2-3 minutes describing the power of TT's pregame chest bumps and headbutts.

I used to think Danielson was the best analyst in CFB, its a real shame to see him take the Dick Vitale/Kirk Herbstreit path.

BuckeyeRed27
12-07-2008, 05:49 PM
Oh boy, missed that one. I muted it shortly after he started gushing about Tim's superhuman strength in pre game warm ups. In case anyone missed it I am being 100% serious, he spent a solid 2-3 minutes describing the power of TT's pregame chest bumps and headbutts.

I used to think Danielson was the best analyst in CFB, its a real shame to see him take the Dick Vitale/Kirk Herbstreit path.

I heard that too. He was saying how he was knocking over his teammates and headbutting one of his RBs. I suppose he was saying it in a good way but it really sounded dumb.

BTW I like Vitale and Herbie. They both have teams and conferences they like that's for sure. But they do both provide pretty solid analysis. I can't stand guys like Fouts and Griese who do the same type of crap Danielson was pulling last night. Billy Packer is also terrible. I'm not even sure he likes college basketball.

Caveat Emperor
12-07-2008, 05:59 PM
Tebow reminds me of Archie Griffin in a way. Phenomenal college player and dominates at that level. Just not sure how he'll project into the pros.

I wouldn't draft him if I were a team looking for help right away, but if I had a late-second / early-third round pick to burn, I'd seriously consider taking a shot on him.

I'd do the exact same thing Florida did with him -- use him in his first year or two as a "wildcat" type quarterback and run some trick stuff with him on the field, possibly lined up as a tailback with the regular QB in the shotgun. Give him a few years to mature, and then see where you're at.

I think if he had some time to develop that he could turn into a pretty damn good NFL QB. He has all of the physical tools to be successful -- strong arm, big frame, decently smart with his throws, and the ability to make something happen when the play breaks down. He just needs some time to learn how to play in a more conventional system.

I think he'd be a PERFECT fit with Gruden in Tampa, but I also think he'd do well in Philadelphia's system and the Dolphin's system as well.

Tebow's gonna surprise some people, IMO.

redsfan30
12-07-2008, 06:35 PM
According to inside sources on an Ohio State website, the team was told earlier this evening that that are officially going to the Fiesta Bowl to play Texas.

Most people thought this was the matchup, but now it's official.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 06:56 PM
According to inside sources on an Ohio State website, the team was told earlier this evening that that are officially going to the Fiesta Bowl to play Texas.

Most people thought this was the matchup, but now it's official.

I bet the folks in New Orleans are thrilled with the thought of Utah and all their mormon fans coming in for a Bowl game. Ouch.

Chip R
12-07-2008, 06:56 PM
Danielson was a joke last night. He completely ruined a great football game with his shameless promotion of Tebow. We all know he's a great player. There is no reason to make stupid comments like being Bronco Nagurski, or being the greatest college football player ever.


I wonder if CBS is making him do that to pimp him for the Heisman. They have a vested interest in seeing Tebow win the Heisman just as ABC would have a vested interest in Bradford winning the Heisman.

Caveat Emperor
12-07-2008, 07:00 PM
I bet the folks in New Orleans are thrilled with the thought of Utah and all their mormon fans coming in for a Bowl game. Ouch.

The only redeeming fact is that Utah, apparently, does travel well -- which means at least the hotels will be full. Bourbon Street? Probably a different story.

Tough break for Nola, but I guess somebody has to get stuck with Utah.

MWM
12-07-2008, 07:14 PM
Well, I'm guessing they'll be buying everything but alcohol. So it can't be all that bad. Although, I have a hard imagining Utah's fans travelling as well as the other programs in the BCS. And who knows, Utah is kind of known within the state kind of like an anti-Mormon school. So they'll bring some drinkers, even if a small amount.

Caveat Emperor
12-07-2008, 09:23 PM
Well, I'm guessing they'll be buying everything but alcohol. So it can't be all that bad.

In a city like New Orleans? Ol' Rue Bourbon isn't going to happy with the inclusion of Utah into things, methinks.

Another whammy with the pick of 'Bama -- they've got a rabid fanbase, but the close proximity of the two locations might hurt overnight travel. I could see a lot of the Tide fans just coming in for the game and leaving afterwards.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 09:27 PM
In a city like New Orleans? Ol' Rue Bourbon isn't going to happy with the inclusion of Utah into things, methinks.

Another whammy with the pick of 'Bama -- they've got a rabid fanbase, but the close proximity of the two locations might hurt overnight travel. I could see a lot of the Tide fans just coming in for the game and leaving afterwards.


Yep. Add in the ratings snoozer you get with the non BCS teams and the Sugar just had a bad day.

As far as the game itself, unless Bama has a post SEC CG hangover (which is very possible) they will kill Utah. It will be a lot like last years UGA/Hawii game imo.

MWM
12-07-2008, 09:33 PM
Yep. Add in the ratings snoozer you get with the non BCS teams and the Sugar just had a bad day.

As far as the game itself, unless Bama has a post SEC CG hangover (which is very possible) they will kill Utah. It will be a lot like last years UGA/Hawii game imo.

That's entirely possible, but after watching Alabama's offense yesterday, it left me scratching my head at how they hadn't lost yet. That is not a good offense. Utah knows how to play defense, so it might be closer than some think. Now I think Alabama will win, and there's a good chance it will be lopsided, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a close game. The SEC wasn't near the beast that it has been this year. Georgia is the only good team other than Florida that Alabama played this year. And Georgia has no clue how to play defense. So being an "SEC Powerhouse" doesn't mean as much this year as in year's past.

paintmered
12-07-2008, 09:34 PM
I just booked my hotel for Miami. :thumbup:

MWM
12-07-2008, 09:35 PM
I think it's cool 2 teams from Ohio are in the BCS this year. I think both teams match up well against the team they're playing.

KronoRed
12-07-2008, 09:38 PM
I think Alabama/Texas would have been a great matchup, oh well.

Glad to see the BCS get it right for the title game :D

dougdirt
12-07-2008, 09:39 PM
I just booked my hotel for Miami. :thumbup:

I am currently planning my trip as well. Looks like I will be taking a trip to Charlottesville prior and then heading down with some friends.

Cyclone792
12-07-2008, 09:42 PM
I just booked my hotel for Miami. :thumbup:

We've got a group of 11 heading down. :beerme:

Marc D
12-07-2008, 09:43 PM
That's entirely possible, but after watching Alabama's offense yesterday, it left me scratching my head at how they hadn't lost yet. That is not a good offense. Utah knows how to play defense, so it might be closer than some think. Now I think Alabama will win, and there's a good chance it will be lopsided, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a close game. The SEC wasn't near the beast that it has been this year. Georgia is the only good team other than Florida that Alabama played this year. And Georgia has no clue how to play defense. So being an "SEC Powerhouse" doesn't mean as much this year as in year's past.

Agreed that the SEC is way down from the last few years but on the flipside of the traditional power run offense is a defense that will be more athletic (especially along the line) than anything Utah has seen.

Just one guys opinion but if this sucker is close I think it will have more to do with Bama than Utah.

MWM
12-07-2008, 09:44 PM
I think Alabama/Texas would have been a great matchup, oh well.

Glad to see the BCS get it right for the title game :D

I'm not sure the fans of ALL the other 1 loss teams agree.

If I was forced to pick who I thought the best two teams were I'd pick Florida and Oklahoma. But that still doesn't mean the other teams aren't getting screwed any less. This system blows.

MWM
12-07-2008, 09:46 PM
Agreed that the SEC is way down from the last few years but on the flipside of the traditional power run offense is a defense that will be more athletic (especially along the line) than anything Utah has seen.

Just one guys opinion but if this sucker is close I think it will have more to do with Bama than Utah.

You could be right. But I think people underestimate the quality of football played in some other conferences. The Mountain West plays some pretty good football. I don't think it Utah is in the game it will be because Alabam laid an egg. They have athletes out there too. And they're pretty well coached from what I can tell.

Caveat Emperor
12-07-2008, 09:48 PM
If I was forced to pick who I thought the best two teams were I'd pick Florida and Oklahoma. But that still doesn't mean the other teams aren't getting screwed any less. This system blows.

Agreed.

USC and Texas have every right to be upset with the results of the BCS selection process. You can make very good arguments for either of them to be involved in the national title game.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 09:56 PM
You could be right. But I think people underestimate the quality of football played in some other conferences. The Mountain West plays some pretty good football. I don't think it Utah is in the game it will be because Alabam laid an egg. They have athletes out there too. And they're pretty well coached from what I can tell.


The biggest difference bewteen the "big time" schools and the "mid majors" is the type of athletes they can put on defense and especially what they can put along the DL. The smaller schools have the systems and skill on offense, there is no question but they just don't get the Glen Dorseys of the world or play anyone all year long that does.

The Boise upset of OU a couple of years ago was what happens when a B12 school plays typical B12 sans-defense football with a team that was pretty much equally skilled.

The beating Hawaii took from UGA last year was what will happen more often than not when a smaller school faces a team that features defense and has upper level talent in the front 7.

All that said the raw number and increased skill level of kids coming out of high school today along with scholarship restrictions have significantly closed the gap. The small schools can beat the big schools when things go the right way and it doesn't take that much to go right anymore. That said when you are talking the upper echelon of the BCS conference teams I'll still put my money on the big schools for the very reason I listed above. Athletes on defense.

MWM
12-07-2008, 09:57 PM
Agreed.

USC and Texas have every right to be upset with the results of the BCS selection process. You can make very good arguments for either of them to be involved in the national title game.

Or Texas Tech, or Penn State. We can argue all day long about conferences and bad losses and all that, but when it comes down to it, all of those teams play in BCS conferences and have one loss and a good win or two on their resume. As a matter of principle, I think all the one loss teams have euqal claim. But that's just how I see it. It doesn't matter who I think is better, or whose conference is better. Based on the results on the field, they all deserve it. If USC beats Penn State, they've got every bit as much claim to a "National Title" as the winner of the BCS championship game. I think the same goes for USC last year. I don't use the word hate very often, but hate is the word I'd use to describe my feelings about the BCS.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 09:58 PM
Agreed.

USC and Texas have every right to be upset with the results of the BCS selection process. You can make very good arguments for either of them to be involved in the national title game.


You could also tell them to not lose to Oregon State or Texas Tech and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

MWM
12-07-2008, 10:05 PM
You could also tell them to not lose to Oregon State or Texas Tech and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

How could that not be applied to the two teams in the national championship game? You can't apply that logic unless you're going to apply it to everyone.

Caveat Emperor
12-07-2008, 10:12 PM
You could also tell them to not lose to Oregon State or Texas Tech and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

USC lost AT Oregon State.
Texas lost AT Texas Tech

Florida lost AT HOME vs. Ole Miss.

Everyone "shouldn't" have lost to someone. That isn't the issue.

Marc D
12-07-2008, 10:16 PM
How could that not be applied to the two teams in the national championship game? You can't apply that logic unless you're going to apply it to everyone.


I agree, thats what I would say to any of the 1 loss teams that are griping. Don't lose. If you do lose you now place your fate in the hands of a system that is quirky at best. Anytime you have multiple teams go to some type of arbitrary tie breaker you are going to have controversy.

There has only been 1 case of an undefeated team getting screwed by the BCS system and there is no explination for that one except nothing can overcome the stupidity of sportswriters and when they get a chub for USC.

dabvu2498
12-08-2008, 12:25 AM
I get to go to Nashville to see my alma mater play!!! Oh wait. My alma mater is in Nashville. Oh well. Better than Memphis I guess.

DoogMinAmo
12-08-2008, 01:54 AM
It seems that for the most pary everyone can agree the national championship has the best two teams duking it out. Arguments can be made for USC or Texas, but Oklahoma and Florida seem to be playing at an entirely different level at this point in the season.

That being said, the biggest gripe I have has been the exclusion of certain teams from the BCS (Boise State and Texas Tech). I have been pondering the merits of the following 3 system changes:

1. Automatic bids stay as currently appropriated, create an at-large playoff where the top 8 non-bcs teams duke it out to get to appear in BCS bowls. Pros: more revenue, games and teams eligible. Cons: big schools would never agree, and is it worth the effort of a "playoff" to not get to a championship but to just get to a "big game"?

OR

2. Boise State moves to the MWC (apparently an invite has been extended) which gains a seventh automatic BCS bid, leaving just 3 at-larges for the BCS. Pros: seems to end the debate for current non-BCS teams becoming bowl eligible. Cons: with only ten spots, and 3 at large openings some great teams might not get the BCS opportunity (not entirely different from where we are now. Also, what happens when the next Boise State arises?) Big schools would never agree.

OR

3. Add a 6th BCS game. Pros: Arguments have already been made about how the spread and scholarship limits have leveled the playing field. More teams can now become good, reward more teams. Cons: dillutes the BCS, and the current BCS bowls would balk at the idea.

thoughts?

Marc D
12-08-2008, 11:02 AM
thoughts?


Even easier (but will never happen) solution, just eliminate the automatic entries and 2 team limits. Take the final BCS top 10 regardless of conference affiliation and fill the 4 games plus the NC game. That system would currently include Boise and TT.

Of course that would exclude the BE and ACC champs this year and reward Boise for playing the 88th toughest schedule in CFB but I don't hear much on those topics from people. Its easier to rail against the evil of the big schools.

OnBaseMachine
12-08-2008, 11:10 AM
This system blows.

Agreed. College football badly needs a playoff system.

cumberlandreds
12-08-2008, 11:30 AM
I think Alabama/Texas would have been a great matchup, oh well.

Glad to see the BCS get it right for the title game :D

I agree. I was hoping for this matchup but I knew we wouldn't get it. Should have been Bama/Texas in the Sugar Bowl and I would have put Utah and Boise in the Fiesta Bowl. A battle of unbeatens but no one would have watched so I'm sure Fox killed that one.
Should be a good BCS championship. But often times when two high powered offenses get together one spints away from the other. So it wouldn't surprise me if one of them wins by a wide margin.

joshnky
12-08-2008, 12:14 PM
Even easier (but will never happen) solution, just eliminate the automatic entries and 2 team limits. Take the final BCS top 10 regardless of conference affiliation and fill the 4 games plus the NC game. That system would currently include Boise and TT.

Agreed but this will clearly never happen. I would much rather watch Texas Tech and Boise play than Cincy and VaTech. Not to take anything away from these two teams because they did what they had to do in this system but its a shame that mediocre conference champions make it in just because they made it out of weak BCS conferences.

paintmered
12-08-2008, 12:16 PM
Agreed but this will clearly never happen. I would much rather watch Texas Tech and Boise play than Cincy and VaTech. Not to take anything away from these two teams because they did what they had to do in this system but its a shame that mediocre conference champions make it in just because they made it out of weak BCS conferences.


From Sagarin:


CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 79.21 78.93 ( 1) 12
2 BIG 12 (A) = 78.31 78.54 ( 2) 12
3 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 75.33 76.19 ( 3) 12
4 BIG EAST (A) = 75.01 74.14 ( 5) 8
5 BIG TEN (A) = 74.72 74.86 ( 4) 11
6 PAC-10 (A) = 72.85 72.16 ( 6) 10
7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 70.51 71.03 ( 7) 9
8 MID-AMERICAN (A) = 65.28 65.14 ( 8) 13
9 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 64.58 64.91 ( 9) 9
10 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 64.48 64.24 ( 10) 4
11 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 64.43 64.15 ( 11) 12
12 COLONIAL (AA)= 61.93 61.72 ( 12) 12
13 SUN BELT (A) = 59.98 59.57 ( 13) 8
14 SOUTHERN (AA)= 57.51 56.86 ( 14) 9
15 BIG SKY (AA)= 53.48 53.88 ( 15) 9
16 MISSOURI VALLEY (AA)= 50.39 49.92 ( 17) 9
17 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 49.99 48.94 ( 20) 7
18 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 49.80 49.36 ( 19) 8
19 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 49.20 49.56 ( 18) 8
20 GREAT WEST (AA)= 49.07 50.36 ( 16) 5
21 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 47.46 47.75 ( 21) 7
22 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 42.73 42.73 ( 22) 9
23 NORTHEAST (AA)= 40.10 39.74 ( 23) 8
24 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 37.61 37.44 ( 24) 10
25 PIONEER (AA)= 35.83 35.18 ( 25) 9
26 I-AA INDEPENDENTS (AA)= 29.90 29.98 ( 27) 5
27 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 29.89 30.44 ( 26) 10
28 ***UNRATED*** (**)= -90.00 -90.00 ( 28) 1

Chip R
12-08-2008, 12:17 PM
Agreed but this will clearly never happen. I would much rather watch Texas Tech and Boise play than Cincy and VaTech. Not to take anything away from these two teams because they did what they had to do in this system but its a shame that mediocre conference champions make it in just because they made it out of weak BCS conferences.


Every conference has it's up and down years. You really can't go changing rules in the middle of the game.

joshnky
12-08-2008, 12:23 PM
From Sagarin:


CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 79.21 78.93 ( 1) 12
2 BIG 12 (A) = 78.31 78.54 ( 2) 12
3 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 75.33 76.19 ( 3) 12
4 BIG EAST (A) = 75.01 74.14 ( 5) 8
5 BIG TEN (A) = 74.72 74.86 ( 4) 11
6 PAC-10 (A) = 72.85 72.16 ( 6) 10
7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 70.51 71.03 ( 7) 9
8 MID-AMERICAN (A) = 65.28 65.14 ( 8) 13
9 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 64.58 64.91 ( 9) 9
10 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 64.48 64.24 ( 10) 4
11 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 64.43 64.15 ( 11) 12
12 COLONIAL (AA)= 61.93 61.72 ( 12) 12
13 SUN BELT (A) = 59.98 59.57 ( 13) 8
14 SOUTHERN (AA)= 57.51 56.86 ( 14) 9
15 BIG SKY (AA)= 53.48 53.88 ( 15) 9
16 MISSOURI VALLEY (AA)= 50.39 49.92 ( 17) 9
17 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 49.99 48.94 ( 20) 7
18 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 49.80 49.36 ( 19) 8
19 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 49.20 49.56 ( 18) 8
20 GREAT WEST (AA)= 49.07 50.36 ( 16) 5
21 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 47.46 47.75 ( 21) 7
22 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 42.73 42.73 ( 22) 9
23 NORTHEAST (AA)= 40.10 39.74 ( 23) 8
24 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 37.61 37.44 ( 24) 10
25 PIONEER (AA)= 35.83 35.18 ( 25) 9
26 I-AA INDEPENDENTS (AA)= 29.90 29.98 ( 27) 5
27 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 29.89 30.44 ( 26) 10
28 ***UNRATED*** (**)= -90.00 -90.00 ( 28) 1


I've used conference ratings enough to know that they're not worth much. The ACC scores well because they have a lot of good teams with few really bad teams. I think East Carolina might have something to say about Virginia Tech being BCS worthy.

So, as a Cincy fan would you rather play Virginia Tech or Texas Tech? If Louisville was in their place I would certainly prefer to face TT because they're the better opponent.

Also, so that I'm not just picking on the Big East and ACC, I would also prefer to see Texas Tech in a BCS game over OSU. Granted, I wouldn't want to see them play Texas again but I think they're the better team, with the better record, from the better conference.

joshnky
12-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Every conference has it's up and down years. You really can't go changing rules in the middle of the game.

Did I suggest that? I just said that I would prefer the other match ups. I'm a Louisville fan and want the Big East to do well but this was not a very good year for the conference.

I'm just using this year as an example to suggest changes that might provide better match ups in future years.

cumberlandreds
12-08-2008, 12:26 PM
The best and most fair way to have a playoff is to have 16 team playoff. You have 11 conferences in division 1-a or whatever its called now. take those 11 winners plus five at large teams and play them off. It would take only 4 weeks. If you are worried about the accademic side of things,you could start in mid-December when final exams are nearly over and be done by the time most spring semesters start.
The big debate every year would then be the five at large teams. This year you would have to invite Alabama,Texas,Texas Tech,Ohio State and ????. Maybe Oregon? Oregon State? Ole Miss is playing as well as anyone in the SEC this side of Florida,maybe them? You could still have plenty of debate but in a different way.

Marc D
12-08-2008, 12:30 PM
Agreed. College football badly needs a playoff system.


A) They have one. It starts week 1 and goes until the last game is played. Its the tie breaker(s) that fans get frustrated with.

B) What does CFB need so badly? More attendance? Better ratings? More money? It has all 3 in spades, what does a playoff bring to the table besides different arguments and a lessened regular season?

Chip R
12-08-2008, 01:14 PM
Did I suggest that? I just said that I would prefer the other match ups. I'm a Louisville fan and want the Big East to do well but this was not a very good year for the conference.

I'm just using this year as an example to suggest changes that might provide better match ups in future years.


You said,


its a shame that mediocre conference champions make it in just because they made it out of weak BCS conferences.

It looks like you are inferring that in the middle of the season, you determine which is a weak conference and you exclude them from the BCS. If that's the case, the Big 10 shouldn't have had a BCS representative for the last 5 years.

joshnky
12-08-2008, 01:37 PM
You said,



It looks like you are inferring that in the middle of the season, you determine which is a weak conference and you exclude them from the BCS. If that's the case, the Big 10 shouldn't have had a BCS representative for the last 5 years.

I guess I can tell you all day that this wasn't what I meant and you won't listen.

By the way, I suggested using the BCS top 10 which would have given the Big Ten a rep the past 5 years and would have given the Big East a rep in every year since the expansion but this one.

You can try to read my string of posts or just cherry pick what you want. At this point I don't really care anymore.

BuckeyeRed27
12-08-2008, 01:45 PM
A) They have one. It starts week 1 and goes until the last game is played. Its the tie breaker(s) that fans get frustrated with.

B) What does CFB need so badly? More attendance? Better ratings? More money? It has all 3 in spades, what does a playoff bring to the table besides different arguments and a lessened regular season?

I see your point that in some ways the season would be "lessened" by moving to a playoff, however I don't think its valid. The main argument for the season being so meaningful is that if you win every game you have nothing to worry about, but that's just not true. Just ask Auburn (or even Utah and Boise State). Those teams all did everything they were asked and still did not have a chance to prove on the field that they were the best team.

I would actually argue that adding a playoff would make the regular season better. Anti-playoff people will typically cite NCAA basketball as their evidence the playoffs destroy the regular season and in basketball that is very true. Basketball also has conference tournaments that go even further towards devaluing the season. Football wouldn't have that. You would still have a very small number of teams that actually make it and one or two losses in most conferences would still hurt your chances. I think that playoff improves the season in 3 ways:
1. It allows teams that normally don't have a chance to have a chance thus making their regular season games MORE important. Big games like BYU/Utah, UC/Pitt, Ohio State/Penn State, VT/BC and all of those great Big 12 games are enhanced this year because there is way more than the Orange or Rose Bowl on the line. You are playing for a legitamate shot at getting a chance at a national title.
2. If you have a system where the first two rounds are at home you lose nothing in the regular season. Lose one game and instead of playing USC or Texas in Columbus or Morgantown you are playing that game in Austin or Los Angeles. That is HUGE.
3. You mentioned that college football has high ratings and attendance. I don't see how a playoff wouldn't only improve that. Many games have high ratings, but a lot of these bowl games and even some big conference games (did you see the crowd at the ACC championship game) are going unwatched. Sure a lot of people are going to watch Bama/Florida but if you slighly increase the scope of meaningful games I would argue that means more viewers for more games.

*BaseClogger*
12-08-2008, 02:11 PM
I agree. I was hoping for this matchup but I knew we wouldn't get it. Should have been Bama/Texas in the Sugar Bowl and I would have put Utah and Boise in the Fiesta Bowl. A battle of unbeatens but no one would have watched so I'm sure Fox killed that one.
Should be a good BCS championship. But often times when two high powered offenses get together one spints away from the other. So it wouldn't surprise me if one of them wins by a wide margin.

I wanted to see UC/tOSU in the Orange Bowl. A battle for the pride of the Buckeye State!

Marc D
12-08-2008, 02:12 PM
I see your point that in some ways the season would be "lessened" by moving to a playoff, however I don't think its valid. The main argument for the season being so meaningful is that if you win every game you have nothing to worry about, but that's just not true. Just ask Auburn (or even Utah and Boise State). Those teams all did everything they were asked and still did not have a chance to prove on the field that they were the best team.

I would actually argue that adding a playoff would make the regular season better. Anti-playoff people will typically cite NCAA basketball as their evidence the playoffs destroy the regular season and in basketball that is very true. Basketball also has conference tournaments that go even further towards devaluing the season. Football wouldn't have that. You would still have a very small number of teams that actually make it and one or two losses in most conferences would still hurt your chances. I think that playoff improves the season in 3 ways:
1. It allows teams that normally don't have a chance to have a chance thus making their regular season games MORE important. Big games like BYU/Utah, UC/Pitt, Ohio State/Penn State, VT/BC and all of those great Big 12 games are enhanced this year because there is way more than the Orange or Rose Bowl on the line. You are playing for a legitamate shot at getting a chance at a national title.
2. If you have a system where the first two rounds are at home you lose nothing in the regular season. Lose one game and instead of playing USC or Texas in Columbus or Morgantown you are playing that game in Austin or Los Angeles. That is HUGE.
3. You mentioned that college football has high ratings and attendance. I don't see how a playoff wouldn't only improve that. Many games have high ratings, but a lot of these bowl games and even some big conference games (did you see the crowd at the ACC championship game) are going unwatched. Sure a lot of people are going to watch Bama/Florida but if you slighly increase the scope of meaningful games I would argue that means more viewers for more games.

-It will lessen the regular season instantly because no matter what you do a playoff opens the door for a team thats already in to rest players. CFB also happens to have its rivalry games at the end of the year and therefore would be the most at risk game for this to happen.

-Also regular season losses would be watered down and the need to win every game(even though it rarely happens) would be diminished.

-The ACC championship game going unwatched situation will not be improved imo because unlike CBB, in football only a handful of teams are good enough to win the NC. No one will watch the ACC or BE championship (or whatever conference is really weak at the time) game if it fed into a playoff anymore than they watch the play in game to the NCAA tourney. The winner isn't going to factor in the end.

-Also I think in a playoff the mid majors would be facing a fully motivated and ready big school on a regular basis and that would quickly reveal just how outmatched they usually are. People would quickly get tired of watching that action and it could possibly hurt ratings even more.


I've said in many places that CFB is making money ad enjoying popularity to the scale that they would be fools to mess with it and regardless of what fans think, the powers that be of CFB are not fools. They are in it for the money, fans don't care about the money and there you have the basis of the frustration..

*BaseClogger*
12-08-2008, 02:15 PM
It looks like you are inferring that in the middle of the season, you determine which is a weak conference and you exclude them from the BCS. If that's the case, the Big 10 shouldn't have had a BCS representative for the last 5 years.

:laugh:

That's not even close to accurate...

cumberlandreds
12-08-2008, 02:21 PM
I wanted to see UC/tOSU in the Orange Bowl. A battle for the pride of the Buckeye State!

I hadn't thought about that one. That would have been an interesting game for sure. But I think,the Orange Bowl is tied in to the Big East vs ACC champ unless one of those is in the BCS title game.?.

*BaseClogger*
12-08-2008, 02:22 PM
I hadn't thought about that one. That would have been an interesting game for sure. But I think,the Orange Bowl is tied in to the Big East vs ACC champ unless one of those is in the BCS title game.?.

Yep that's right, it wasn't plausible at all but it's what I wanted to see! :D

Chip R
12-08-2008, 02:28 PM
I guess I can tell you all day that this wasn't what I meant and you won't listen.

By the way, I suggested using the BCS top 10 which would have given the Big Ten a rep the past 5 years and would have given the Big East a rep in every year since the expansion but this one.

You can try to read my string of posts or just cherry pick what you want. At this point I don't really care anymore.


Perhaps you need to be more clear and explain your point better instead of thinking I'm just a meanie because I questioned what you said.

Marc D
12-08-2008, 02:42 PM
It looks like you are inferring that in the middle of the season, you determine which is a weak conference and you exclude them from the BCS. If that's the case, the Big 10 shouldn't have had a BCS representative for the last 5 years.


You let your blind hate of OSU and the B10 make you say some really silly things. Which OSU teams shouldn't have been in the BCS the last 5 years?

The 2003 team that was 10-2 and beat the B12 champ in the Fiesta Bowl? The 2005 team that had 2 losses by less than a combined 10 points to the eventual NC Texas team and Orange Bowl champion PSU? The 2006 team that was 12-0 with a win on the road over Texas? The 2007 team that only had 1 loss when everyone else had 2?

OSU has gotten killed in two Bowl games when playing for a National Championship. Thats a far cry from not even being BCS worthy.

BTW, even with OSU's well documented struggles against the SEC the B10 overall is 9-9 head to head and 7-7 in Bowl games against the SEC over the past 5 years. Not too shabby for a bunch of slow dumb neanderthals going up against the conference the media will tell you is better than the NFC West.

Hoosier Red
12-08-2008, 02:44 PM
I wanted to see UC/tOSU in the Orange Bowl. A battle for the pride of the Buckeye State!

Ohio State would have declined the invitation. :devil:

BuckeyeRed27
12-08-2008, 02:54 PM
-It will lessen the regular season instantly because no matter what you do a playoff opens the door for a team thats already in to rest players. CFB also happens to have its rivalry games at the end of the year and therefore would be the most at risk game for this to happen.

-Also regular season losses would be watered down and the need to win every game(even though it rarely happens) would be diminished.

-The ACC championship game going unwatched situation will not be improved imo because unlike CBB, in football only a handful of teams are good enough to win the NC. No one will watch the ACC or BE championship (or whatever conference is really weak at the time) game if it fed into a playoff anymore than they watch the play in game to the NCAA tourney. The winner isn't going to factor in the end.

-Also I think in a playoff the mid majors would be facing a fully motivated and ready big school on a regular basis and that would quickly reveal just how outmatched they usually are. People would quickly get tired of watching that action and it could possibly hurt ratings even more.


I've said in many places that CFB is making money ad enjoying popularity to the scale that they would be fools to mess with it and regardless of what fans think, the powers that be of CFB are not fools. They are in it for the money, fans don't care about the money and there you have the basis of the frustration..

1. I think it would be pretty rare when a team would have home field advantage wrapped up and could just throw it on cruise control. One no team is going to take it easy in a rivalry game. Ohio State or USC aren't going to lay down for Michigan or UCLA just because they have the conference wrapped up. Also what if you had an undefeated conference champ that could still lose and make the playoffs. You lose that last game and you just cost yourself home field. No coach is going to risk that. You still need to win every game.

2. I disagree that match ups from unlikely eventual national champs will not have more of an audience. The only people watching now are fans of those teams. If that's a team that is going to be a potential team your team has to play on their road to with the national championship there is a better chance you are tuning in. Plus more fans of the game are going to be interested if the stakes are higher which the no doubt are in a playoff.

3. I agree with your mid major comment

Chip R
12-08-2008, 03:21 PM
You let your blind hate of OSU and the B10 make you say some really silly things. Which OSU teams shouldn't have been in the BCS the last 5 years?

The 2003 team that was 10-2 and beat the B12 champ in the Fiesta Bowl? The 2005 team that had 2 losses by less than a combined 10 points to the eventual NC Texas team and Orange Bowl champion PSU? The 2006 team that was 12-0 with a win on the road over Texas? The 2007 team that only had 1 loss when everyone else had 2?

OSU has gotten killed in two Bowl games when playing for a National Championship. Thats a far cry from not even being BCS worthy.

BTW, even with OSU's well documented struggles against the SEC the B10 overall is 9-9 head to head and 7-7 in Bowl games against the SEC over the past 5 years. Not too shabby for a bunch of slow dumb neanderthals going up against the conference the media will tell you is better than the NFC West.


For one thing, I don't have blind hatred of tOSU. I don't wake up every morning like most of you and sing Across The Field but I certainly don't hate them either.

Secondly, I was just going by josh's criteria. Face facts, the Big 10 has been a mediocre conference for the past few years. Josh didn't want to see winners of mediocre conferences in the BCS and I took that to it's logical conclusion. Your beef is with him, not me. You really never know from year to year which conference is going to be weak and which one will be strong. The SEC was down this year but no one saw that coming until about halfway through the season.

If you are going to have the BCS, which I oppose, then you have to play the hand that's dealt including having the mediocre champs of the mediocre BCS conferences in the BCS bowls. Otherwise, get rid of all the bowl games and just have the BCS championship game.

Caveat Emperor
12-08-2008, 03:48 PM
A) They have one. It starts week 1 and goes until the last game is played. Its the tie breaker(s) that fans get frustrated with.

Or the fact that the team that wins all their games doesn't even get mentioned when discussing the tie breaker.

Some playoff. It'd be like awarding the Patriots the Super Bowl even though the Giants won all their postseason games (AND beat the Patriots!).

BuckeyeRedleg
12-08-2008, 05:09 PM
Face facts, the Big 10 has been a mediocre conference for the past few years.

I guess you could say the same for every conference not named the SEC.

Remove the SEC and "this conference is better than this conference" stuff is really splitting hairs.

And even the SEC (which again, I feel is the best from top to bottom) had a sort of mediocre year. At least, for their standards.

Chip R
12-08-2008, 05:15 PM
I guess you could say the same for every conference not named the SEC.

Remove the SEC and "this conference is better than this conference" stuff is really splitting hairs.

And even the SEC (which again, I feel is the best from top to bottom) had a sort of mediocre year. At least, for their standards.


And that's exactly what I'm saying. It changes so much from year to year that you just can't say at the beginning of the year that this conference is good and that conference is bad. If you're going to have the BCS, you have to take the bad with the good.

Hoosier Red
12-08-2008, 05:25 PM
What if they only brought in the top 10 in the BCS ratings every year, the conferences are compensated based on how much participation they've had in the last 5 years.

BuckeyeRedleg
12-08-2008, 05:29 PM
And that's exactly what I'm saying. It changes so much from year to year that you just can't say at the beginning of the year that this conference is good and that conference is bad. If you're going to have the BCS, you have to take the bad with the good.

Gotcha. Well, then you and I agree.

Speaking of the Big Ten - SEC. Ironically, the Big 10 would have major bragging rights over the SEC over the past 5, 6,7,8, 9, years, etc. if Ohio State hadn't struggled so much with that conference.

Going back to 2002 (the year Ohio State won their national championship), the Big 10 is 4-2 in the Capital One Bowl (vs the SEC) winning the last four, and 3-3 in the Outback Bowl (vs. the SEC). Not bad, considering we hear time and time again how awful or mediocre the Big 10 is and how dominant the SEC is and, of course, all those games are played on SEC soil (Florida).

So, add OSU's losses vs. Florida and LSU and the Big Ten is 7-7 in bowls the last six years vs the SEC (8-7 if you include Michigan over Vandy last year), with a national championship and two runner-up's. Not too shabby.

Marc D
12-08-2008, 11:59 PM
1. I think it would be pretty rare when a team would have home field advantage wrapped up and could just throw it on cruise control. One no team is going to take it easy in a rivalry game. Ohio State or USC aren't going to lay down for Michigan or UCLA just because they have the conference wrapped up. Also what if you had an undefeated conference champ that could still lose and make the playoffs. You lose that last game and you just cost yourself home field. No coach is going to risk that. You still need to win every game.

Depending on what the format would be there could be a thousand different what if scenarios presented in a discussion like this. The net result always comes back to the fact you are indeed opening the door for something like that to happen and once you create a chance for something to happen, it will eventually.

IIRC Steve Superior sat some kids vs FSU a few years ago to get ready for the first SEC CG.



2. I disagree that match ups from unlikely eventual national champs will not have more of an audience. The only people watching now are fans of those teams. If that's a team that is going to be a potential team your team has to play on their road to with the national championship there is a better chance you are tuning in. Plus more fans of the game are going to be interested if the stakes are higher which the no doubt are in a playoff.

Could be, who knows. I don't think you are ever going to find a way to get a big audience for some of the lower tier matchups.


3. I agree with your mid major comment
It will be a CFB version of letting all the small conference champs into the NCAA tourney. They will make a little noise from time to time but they are never going to win anything. The good part would be it would finally shut up the people constantly whining about the Utah's and Boise State's never getting a shot at the NC.

Jack Burton
12-10-2008, 07:18 PM
Prediction:
Tebow will win his second heisman this year, too many idiot voters have been duped by florida's gestapo tactics.

Compare numbers, he doesn't even deserve the trip to NY.

It's obvious that it should be between Bradford, McCoy and Harrell.

Sick of tebow. Ball on the 1, 3 qb sneaks in a row for tebow of course you're gonna score.

Thoughts?

BuckeyeRed27
12-10-2008, 08:14 PM
Prediction:
Tebow will win his second heisman this year, too many idiot voters have been duped by florida's gestapo tactics.

Compare numbers, he doesn't even deserve the trip to NY.

It's obvious that it should be between Bradford, McCoy and Harrell.

Sick of tebow. Ball on the 1, 3 qb sneaks in a row for tebow of course you're gonna score.

Thoughts?

Tebow is a great player. He certainly makes that team go and Florida would not be as good without him. That being said I believe that Colt McCoy had the best season and was most valuable to his teams success.
If Tebow wins it will be because Bradford and McCoy split too many votes.

MWM
12-10-2008, 10:07 PM
It will be a joke if Tebow wins again. It will prove it's nothing more than a popularity contest. This award has already down the path of irrelevance over the past decade, though, so I don't know that it matters.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 10:26 PM
It will be a joke if Tebow wins again. This award has already down the path of irrelevance over the past decade, though, so I don't know that it matters.

Agreed. Tebow shouldn't have even been invited to New York, IMO. McCoy, Harrell, and Bradford all belong there.

Jack Burton
12-10-2008, 11:05 PM
I'd like to know tebow's heisman vote, probably similar to the following.

1. Tim Tebow
2. Bo Derek
3. Jimmy Clausen

MWM
12-10-2008, 11:42 PM
Just to be clear, I think Tim Tebow is great ambassadro to college football. I think he's a class act. He's a great student, an intelligent guy, and he carries himself well. He's involved in several humanitarium efforts. I've grown to respect the guy quite a bit this year. It has nothing to do with Tim Tebow the guy. College football needs more guys like him. But I just don't think he's the most outstanding player in the college football this year. I know plenty of players who been dinged int he past in Heisman votes because they're a "system QB." I think Tebow is a helluva player, but he benefits as much as anyone from the system he plays in. Just my opinion. I'd give it to Bradford. It's also irritating that Crabtree has been completely forgotten, as has anyone else not on a top 5 team.

*BaseClogger*
12-11-2008, 12:30 AM
That and Archie... :D

MWM
12-11-2008, 12:37 AM
Nah, someone will come along at some point and will win two in a row and will be deserving. It might even be Bradford.

WMR
12-11-2008, 10:15 AM
Just to be clear, I think Tim Tebow is great ambassadro to college football. I think he's a class act. He's a great student, an intelligent guy, and he carries himself well. He's involved in several humanitarium efforts. I've grown to respect the guy quite a bit this year. It has nothing to do with Tim Tebow the guy. College football needs more guys like him. But I just don't think he's the most outstanding player in the college football this year. I know plenty of players who been dinged int he past in Heisman votes because they're a "system QB." I think Tebow is a helluva player, but he benefits as much as anyone from the system he plays in. Just my opinion. I'd give it to Bradford. It's also irritating that Crabtree has been completely forgotten, as has anyone else not on a top 5 team.

I think Crabtree getting hurt is what took him out of serious contention.

HeatherC1212
12-12-2008, 02:17 AM
Agreed. Tebow shouldn't have even been invited to New York, IMO. McCoy, Harrell, and Bradford all belong there.

That's who I thought would be picked too. All three of those guys were outstanding and more valuable to their teams this year (nothing against Tebow who is a good guy and a solid athlete). I saw Texas play a few times on TV and even just from those few games, I'll be rooting for McCoy to win the Heisman this year. He is one heck of an athete and a great QB.

Jack Burton
12-12-2008, 12:00 PM
The Heisman is between Bradford and McCoy, Tebow doesn't deserve anything more than a few 3rd place votes. You have to compare the numbers and Tebow isn't even in that discussion. Looks like Tebow is going to get a lot of sympathy votes for crying at the podium, that ain't right.

Roy Tucker
12-12-2008, 02:01 PM
Seems a bit like the MVP vs. the PotY discussion. I think Tebow has been the most valuable to his team (adding in intangibles + leadership + being called Bronko Nagurski), but Bradford and McCoy have had better QB seasons.