BCS: Louisville/Florida

Off Topic
43

I’m not against playoffs per se, but the NCAA needs to do two things for it to work.

1.) If a playoff is not needed (such as in 1999, 2002, or 2005), DON’T USE ONE!. Just have the unbeaten teams play in the title game.

2.) Cap the playoff at FOUR teams. There never has been and never will be a season in which more than four teams will have a legit claim to the title.

When you have large playoffs, you water down the regular season, and often have “champions” that merely skated through most of the season and then got hot right before the playoffs.

Your defending “Champions” in other sports –

NFL - Pittsburgh Steelers
MLB - St. Louis Cards
NBA - Miami Heat
CBB - Florida Gators

Not a one of these teams were even close to the best teams throughout the season; they merely got hot at the end.

If CFB had a playoff, undoubtedly a 2 or even 3-loss team would put together a strong finish and win the playoff bracket. But are they the real “Champions”?

That does NOT happen in College Football as it is now.

Basically, playoff proponents are NON-College Football fans who want to change the sport so it’s more like other sports.

We College Football Fans are telling you to leave our sport alone! We like it the way it is!

44

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
nolecat wrote:
a good post

I agree with a lot of what you said- I mean, those are pretty much the best arguments for a playoff system in college football.

Even more than anything, I just really like college football the way it is. I like the tradition of the conferences and I like the fact that the regular season just means so damn much. The only thing that would worry me about a playoff is that I think it might just diminish slightly the feverish intensity of the regular season.

Look at the Louisville-Rutgers game last night. It meant so damn much because if Louisville was basically playing for the right to play in the national championship. Now their season is basically down the drain because of one loss- I LOVE THAT!

If Louisville would have won, then Ohio State and Michigan would’ve been playing for the right to play in the national championship (as it is, the loser might just still get in). I think that is pretty cool that a regular season game can have so much damn importance.

I love college basketball as much or more than anybody else because of the tournament and how incredible that atmosphere is. But I love college football because the whole season is basically do or die. Different but equally cool in my eyes.

In any case, one thing I’m certain on is that the NCAA is going to do whatever system makes them the most money. That much I’m sure of![/quote]

I do wish the Basketball tourny would trim it down a bit. They seem to be at the extreme oposite end of the spectrum…too many teams getting a shot.

But, check out this scenario that I’m in favor of: To keep the importance of the regular season and to preserve the classic traditions of the bowl games, I suggest we do away with national titles in college football all together.

You’ll have conference champions that all go to their respected bowl (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, etc…) and then fill the remaining with the other teams. At the end of the bowl games, no one is crowned champ…you can vote on who you think is number one (Harris, Coaches, AP) and spend all off season debating it, but no one gets an official trophy. This would be truely unique and make the regular season even more special.

Teams would not be affraid to schedule tougher out of conference opponents (as opposed to padding them with Div AA) because the absurd stress of going undefeated every year is eased up a bit. Keep the 4 major bowls as the big money bowls…since that is all they are (not championship bowls!).

What do you think? I kind of like the idea. None of this bogus mess we have now.

45

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m not against playoffs per se, but the NCAA needs to do two things for it to work.

1.) If a playoff is not needed (such as in 1999, 2002, or 2005), DON’T USE ONE!. Just have the unbeaten teams play in the title game.

2.) Cap the playoff at FOUR teams. There never has been and never will be a season in which more than four teams will have a legit claim to the title.
[/quote]

This year could end (before bowl games) with as many as 10 one-loss teams and two undefeated teams.

When 12 out of 119 make the playoffs, I think it is pretty hard to call the regular season watered down.

[quote]
Basically, playoff proponents are NON-College Football fans who want to change the sport so it’s more like other sports.

We College Football Fans are telling you to leave our sport alone! We like it the way it is![/quote]

Is that is insult or a poor assumption? I think you should tell that to more fans.

46

Basically, playoff proponents are NON-College Football fans who want to change the sport so it’s more like other sports.

That is completely not true. I watch all the games…Conference USA, WAC, Sunbelt. I grew up on the campus of Alabama, Georgia, went to school at FSU, Dad works at Auburn, father in-law played for Texas A&M…college ball is in my blood.

I want to see them open the doors up a little. College football seems to be only interested in the traditional big powerhouses. It is as if no one else is allowed into that club. For all the Utahs, Rutgers, and Louisvilles, there is a glass ceiling for them.

It is an elitist system set up to bring in the largest dollar amount. I agree that it should be a small tourny. You don’t need the stragbglers coming in through the backdoor. But you have to allow other schools the opportunity.

CFB is so stubborn to reclassify a school as a winning program. They “invite” them to play in a money bowl…but not a national title. Look at College basketball, they are not affraid to mention Gonzaga, George Mason, Butler, St. Joes etc…in the same sentence as Duke, UConn, or Kentucky.

In football, it’s the old guards like USC, Texas, OSU and no one else. All you here is “they don’t deserve a title” or “there is no way they can compete.” If you like that then fine, but don’t speak for all college football fans. I know plenty that want a tourny.

We College Football Fans are telling you to leave our sport alone! We like it the way it is![/quote]

47

Basically, playoff proponents are NON-College Football fans who want to change the sport so it’s more like other sports.

That is completely not true. I watch all the games…Conference USA, WAC, Sunbelt. I grew up on the campus of Alabama, Georgia, went to school at FSU, Dad works at Auburn, father in-law played for Texas A&M…college ball is in my blood.

I want to see them open the doors up a little. College football seems to be only interested in the traditional big powerhouses. It is as if no one else is allowed into that club.

For all the Utahs, Rutgers, and Louisvilles, there is a glass ceiling for them. It is an elitist system set up to bring in the largest dollar amount. I agree that it should be a small tourny. You don’t need the stragbglers coming in through the backdoor. But you have to allow other schools the opportunity.

CFB is so stubborn to reclassify a school as a winning program. They “invite” them to play in a money bowl…but not a national title. Look at College basketball, they are not affraid to mention Gonzaga, George Mason, Butler, St. Joes etc…in the same sentence as Duke, UConn, or Kentucky. In football, it’s the old guards like USC, Texas, OSU and no one else.

All you here is “they don’t deserve a title” or “there is no way they can compete.” If you like that then fine, but don’t speak for all college football fans. I know plenty that want a tourny.

We College Football Fans are telling you to leave our sport alone! We like it the way it is![/quote]

48

[quote]buckaroo wrote:
But, check out this scenario that I’m in favor of: To keep the importance of the regular season and to preserve the classic traditions of the bowl games, I suggest we do away with national titles in college football all together.

You’ll have conference champions that all go to their respected bowl (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, etc…) and then fill the remaining with the other teams. At the end of the bowl games, no one is crowned champ…you can vote on who you think is number one (Harris, Coaches, AP) and spend all off season debating it, but no one gets an official trophy. This would be truely unique and make the regular season even more special.

Teams would not be affraid to schedule tougher out of conference opponents (as opposed to padding them with Div AA) because the absurd stress of going undefeated every year is eased up a bit. Keep the 4 major bowls as the big money bowls…since that is all they are (not championship bowls!).

What do you think? I kind of like the idea. None of this bogus mess we have now.
[/quote]

We could also all wear skintight jeans, flannel shirts and carry around 10 lb. cell phones and relive the 80’s. Dude, this is exactly what we had before the the Bowl Coalition and Bowl alliance, predecessors to the BCS. One positive thing I can say about the BCS is that it is the best system we have seen yet, in I-A.

49

[quote]tedro wrote:
buckaroo wrote:
But, check out this scenario that I’m in favor of: To keep the importance of the regular season and to preserve the classic traditions of the bowl games, I suggest we do away with national titles in college football all together.

You’ll have conference champions that all go to their respected bowl (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, etc…) and then fill the remaining with the other teams.

At the end of the bowl games, no one is crowned champ…you can vote on who you think is number one (Harris, Coaches, AP) and spend all off season debating it, but no one gets an official trophy. This would be truely unique and make the regular season even more special.

Teams would not be affraid to schedule tougher out of conference opponents (as opposed to padding them with Div AA) because the absurd stress of going undefeated every year is eased up a bit. Keep the 4 major bowls as the big money bowls…since that is all they are (not championship bowls!).

What do you think? I kind of like the idea. None of this bogus mess we have now.

We could also all wear skintight jeans, flannel shirts and carry around 10 lb. cell phones and relive the 80’s. Dude, this is exactly what we had before the the Bowl Coalition and Bowl alliance, predecessors to the BCS. One positive thing I can say about the BCS is that it is the best system we have seen yet, in I-A.
[/quote]

Almost, except they crowned national champs in the record books. I’m saying do away with that. There is no crowning, no labeling. Even if every poll agrees that XYZ university is number one…no title!

50

Can we all now agree that the 2 best teams in the country happen to play in the same conference?

And why, when one of the two has to lose when they play one another, should that mean that they shouldn’t meet for the championship?

Everyone wants to talk about all the ‘other’ one loss teams out there. How about your only loss coming at the hands of the concensous # 1 or 2 team in the land.

Anyway–Thank goodness for this week. I don’t have to listen to anymore Louisville, Auburn, Texas, one loss whiners any more. I suppose USC and Fl. fans will pipe in, but it all comes down to one game played on Saturday. If it’s as good as I think it’s gonna be, nothin’ else matters.

  1. Michigan
  2. Ohio St.
    3:)Wisconsin
51

OSU and UM are probably the best 2 teams. But here is something no one is bringing up. Look at their schedule. After the Texas game and Notre Dame game, they haven’t played anyone. People rag on Louisville’s and WVU’s schedule, but look at the mediocre Big 10. OSU and UM have been beating up on the same crap teams such as Illinois, Indiana, NW, Minnesota, Iowa(suprisingly bad), Penn State, Mich. St., Purdue…those teams suck this year. Out of conference, Michigan has played Ball State, Central Mich, and Vandy…OSU has played Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green. People speak of UM and OSU like they have been beating up on top 10 teams all year.

So let them play for a rematch, fine…but lets not be too quick to put them leaps and bounds above Florida, USC, or even Arkansas.

52

[quote]nolecat wrote:
OSU and UM are probably the best 2 teams. But here is something no one is bringing up. Look at their schedule. After the Texas game and Notre Dame game, they haven’t played anyone. People rag on Louisville’s and WVU’s schedule, but look at the mediocre Big 10. OSU and UM have been beating up on the same crap teams such as Illinois, Indiana, NW, Minnesota, Iowa(suprisingly bad), Penn State, Mich. St., Purdue…those teams suck this year. Out of conference, Michigan has played Ball State, Central Mich, and Vandy…OSU has played Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green. People speak of UM and OSU like they have been beating up on top 10 teams all year.

So let them play for a rematch, fine…but lets not be too quick to put them leaps and bounds above Florida, USC, or even Arkansas.[/quote]

I couldn’t have said it much better myself. The two teams at the top are there because they were placed there by the football gods in preseason and they haven’t played anyone with enough talent to knock them off. Ohio St. and Michigan maybe good programs with great tradition but they don’t play in a conference anywhere near the caliber of the SEC. Hell, for that matter no one outside of the SEC plays in a conference the caliber of the SEC. Week in and week out you’re playing heavy hitters in the SEC.

The Big 12, Big 10, Big East, PAC 10, and the SEC are considered by most to be your power conferences. Let’s look at the year-after-year “heavy hitters” in each.

Big 12

Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska (sometimes as of late)

Big 10

Ohio St.
Michigan

Big East

Louisville
West Virginia

PAC 10

USC
Cal

SEC

Arkansas
Tennessee
Florida
Auburn
LSU
Georgia
Alabama (not lately)

So tell me, which conference is the toughest to run? I think the SEC speaks for itself. Oh yea, and who hasn’t lost a game in the toughest conference in the land so far? ARKANSAS!!!

So should Arkansas run the table and win the SEC championship (which most experts expect them to do) then I think they’ve got just as much right if not more maybe to expect to be in the BCS championship game.

Just my humble opinion of course.

53

[quote]HogLover wrote:
nolecat wrote:
OSU and UM are probably the best 2 teams. But here is something no one is bringing up. Look at their schedule. After the Texas game and Notre Dame game, they haven’t played anyone. People rag on Louisville’s and WVU’s schedule, but look at the mediocre Big 10. OSU and UM have been beating up on the same crap teams such as Illinois, Indiana, NW, Minnesota, Iowa(suprisingly bad), Penn State, Mich. St., Purdue…those teams suck this year. Out of conference, Michigan has played Ball State, Central Mich, and Vandy…OSU has played Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green. People speak of UM and OSU like they have been beating up on top 10 teams all year.

So let them play for a rematch, fine…but lets not be too quick to put them leaps and bounds above Florida, USC, or even Arkansas.

I couldn’t have said it much better myself. The two teams at the top are there because they were placed there by the football gods in preseason and they haven’t played anyone with enough talent to knock them off. Ohio St. and Michigan maybe good programs with great tradition but they don’t play in a conference anywhere near the caliber of the SEC. Hell, for that matter no one outside of the SEC plays in a conference the caliber of the SEC. Week in and week out you’re playing heavy hitters in the SEC.

The Big 12, Big 10, Big East, PAC 10, and the SEC are considered by most to be your power conferences. Let’s look at the year-after-year “heavy hitters” in each.

Big 12

Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska (sometimes as of late)

Big 10

Ohio St.
Michigan

Big East

Louisville
West Virginia

PAC 10

USC
Cal

SEC

Arkansas
Tennessee
Florida
Auburn
LSU
Georgia
Alabama (not lately)

So tell me, which conference is the toughest to run? I think the SEC speaks for itself. Oh yea, and who hasn’t lost a game in the toughest conference in the land so far? ARKANSAS!!!

So should Arkansas run the table and win the SEC championship (which most experts expect them to do) then I think they’ve got just as much right if not more maybe to expect to be in the BCS championship game.

Just my humble opinion of course.[/quote]

Hoglover,
I gotta disagree. The Razorbacks haven’t been a threat for a while until this year. and to say that Big Blue and those candy-assed buckeyes have played weaker teams than SEMO(vs Ark) and Arkasas State(vs Auburn) is a little off . Auburn should not be on that list of power teams in the SEC, because they were pretenders to the crown and got shown up for it.

Now, what I do agree with is that if the heavenly crimson and white run the table and beat MSU, LSU, and Fla, they should get another shot at Big Blue. But, remember the last time that happened? 44-31 I think was the score, and the game wasn’t that close.