[quote]btm62 wrote:
I think you will find the Big 10 is the conference that is overrated. The SEC has much better teams and more of them. This year anyway.
I think both Michigan and OSU go down in bowl games.
I may be full of shit, but I’m calling it now.
[/quote]
I tend to think you’re full of shit. Analyzing the teams objectively, I HIGHLY doubt Michigan will lose to USC. And it’s even more unlikely that Florida loses to Ohio State.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
Doesn’t surprise me. SEC has never gotten any respect.
What a load of bullshit. Florida is in the title game precisely because of the respect the SEC gets.
[/quote]
And the massive amounts of politicking and inexplicable resistance to seeing a rematch [which the rules do not prohibit; nor do they prohibit two teams from the same conference].
[quote]tveddy wrote:
When are people gonna learn that college football isn’t about who deserves what. Its about money. [/quote]
Way about money. That’s why the BCS originated in the first place and why it’s still here, despite significant disatisfaction on the parts of many with it.
Michigan might be the better team, but with the lack of a true playoff system I do not think you should be allowed to play for the National Championship if you didnt even win your own conference.
In regards to the money side of the BCS vs. playoff argument, I’m not so sure a playoff wouldn’t be better economically. I don’t think there are too many people who would call the ‘powers that be’ in college football geniuses. They’ve made mistakes before, who’s to say they aren’t currently making one? I think it’s fair to say that March Madness far exceeds the BCS bowl system in popularity, and while a football tourney would only involve a few games I think the NCAA would see a huge spike in viewership if the top 4-6 teams were all given an equal shot at the championship.
The way I see it: the meaningless games (for example, the bowls that BC plays in year after year) can still be held and would remain just as meaningless. The only difference would be a tourney of the top teams, and you could keep the 4-site revolving system currently in place: Week 1 (Sat the 16th), play-in game between LSU and USC held in Miami, FL. Week 2 (Sat the 23rd): (winner of play-in) vs. Ohio State held in New Orleans, LA; and Michigan vs. Florida held in Pasadena, CA; Championship (Jan. 8th) two Week 2 winners, held in Glendale AZ.
Or you could have the top 6 teams with byes for the two highest ranked teams the first week.
Essentially, both of these scenarios allow for the 4 BCS sites to still receive their big-time games, with a rotating championship site; and it allows for the top 5-6 teams in the country to have a shot at the championship.
In my mind, since it seems every year or two there’s no clearcut 1 vs. 2, SOMETHING needs to be done.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Why would it have to go to a conference champion? The college presidents can get together and make up any system they want if you think about it. If you kept it at the top 4 in the BCS playing in a rotating schedule of two New Year’s Bowls followed by the “plus one” National Championship Game a week later you would pretty much negate most controversy. I mean it would have to be really outlandish to have a 5-team controversy. I don’t think that’s ever happened.
[/quote]
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2003 - USC, OU, and LSU all with one loss are generally considered the top three teams prior to the bowls. But then who is your 4 seed? Mich, OSU, Florida State, Miami, Texas and Tennessee all have two losses. Also, OU just lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship. Kansas State has three losses, all with a backup quaterback. Many say KSU may be the best team at this point.
2004 - At the end of the regular season, we had 5 undefeated teams. USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State. Under a four team playoff, I’m sure Boise State would be left out, but many would argue for one loss Texas or Cal to be there instead of Utah. Louisville also had a very good team that year, beating BSU in their bowl game.
2005 - Texas, USC, and Penn St. are the top three. For four do you take SEC champ Georgia, one-loss Oregon, or 2-loss OSU or Notre Dame. You also have 10-1 West Virginia, Big East champs.
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
As far as the +1, when do you decide whether or not you need the extra game?
If Florida and Michigan win, should they play each other? If OSU and Mich win, should they play again? If Boise State wins, should they have a chance to play any of these three? What about Wisconisin and Louisville? Either of these teams could easily end up as number 2 when the season ends, and both had impressive seasons.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
OARSMAN wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
Doesn’t surprise me. SEC has never gotten any respect.
What a load of bullshit. Florida is in the title game precisely because of the respect the SEC gets.
And the massive amounts of politicking and inexplicable resistance to seeing a rematch [which the rules do not prohibit; nor do they prohibit two teams from the same conference]. [/quote]
Very true, and it’s the only reason I can think of as to why Florida jumped Michigan. So lets see, Michigan was ranked either 2nd or 3rd from weeks 8 to 14 (with the only teams ahead of them being Ohio State and USC), while Florida was as low as 10. The Gators, in this stretch, were never ranked ahead of Michigan. So how, during a weekend when the Wolverine players were sitting at home and the Gators were a caught punt away from losing to Arkansas, did the two teams flip-flop? The only reason I can honestly come up with is ratings…no rematch, different conferences, different regions of the country. Simple as that.
[quote]tedro wrote:
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
[/quote]
this case, LSU because they are ranked higher than the others.
[quote]Hambone1818 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
OARSMAN wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
Doesn’t surprise me. SEC has never gotten any respect.
What a load of bullshit. Florida is in the title game precisely because of the respect the SEC gets.
And the massive amounts of politicking and inexplicable resistance to seeing a rematch [which the rules do not prohibit; nor do they prohibit two teams from the same conference].
Very true, and it’s the only reason I can think of as to why Florida jumped Michigan. So lets see, Michigan was ranked either 2nd or 3rd from weeks 8 to 14 (with the only teams ahead of them being Ohio State and USC), while Florida was as low as 10. The Gators, in this stretch, were never ranked ahead of Michigan. So how, during a weekend when the Wolverine players were sitting at home and the Gators were a caught punt away from losing to Arkansas, did the two teams flip-flop? The only reason I can honestly come up with is ratings…no rematch, different conferences, different regions of the country. Simple as that.
[/quote]
Yup
[quote]Angrypenguin wrote:
Michigan might be the better team, but with the lack of a true playoff system I do not think you should be allowed to play for the National Championship if you didnt even win your own conference.[/quote]
Here’s a hypothetical:
#1 Oklahoma goes 12-0. #2 Texas goes 11-1, with their only loss being a 2-pt loss in 5 overtimes to Oklahoma. Every other team in America has at least 2 losses.
In the Big XII Championship game, Oklahoma is stunned by 8-4 Nebraska. Now neither Oklahoma at 12-1 nor Texas at 11-1 have won their Conference Title.
Every other team in America has 2 losses, but OU and UT are not eligible to play even though they both have only one loss.
Outlandish? Sure it is, but there have been recent seasons (like this one) where we were THISCLOSE to having scenarios similar to this.
For that reason, I think banning non-Conference Champions from the National Title game is a little short-sighted.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
tedro wrote:
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
this case, LSU because they are ranked higher than the others.[/quote]
You’re just saying that because you’re an LSU fan. 
I’m an OU fan, and I think THEY should go, since they’re really 12-1 instead of 11-2.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
tedro wrote:
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
this case, LSU because they are ranked higher than the others.
You’re just saying that because you’re an LSU fan.
I’m an OU fan, and I think THEY should go, since they’re really 12-1 instead of 11-2.
[/quote]
Haha, yeah a bit of a die-hard.
But really, this is the biggest problem. OU is 12-1, but ranked lower than the 11-2 Tigers. Why’s that? I don’t know, but it really makes chosing the fourth team a bitch.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Angrypenguin wrote:
Michigan might be the better team, but with the lack of a true playoff system I do not think you should be allowed to play for the National Championship if you didnt even win your own conference.
Here’s a hypothetical:
#1 Oklahoma goes 12-0. #2 Texas goes 11-1, with their only loss being a 2-pt loss in 5 overtimes to Oklahoma. Every other team in America has at least 2 losses.
In the Big XII Championship game, Oklahoma is stunned by 8-4 Nebraska. Now neither Oklahoma at 12-1 nor Texas at 11-1 have won their Conference Title.
Every other team in America has 2 losses, but OU and UT are not eligible to play even though they both have only one loss.
Outlandish? Sure it is, but there have been recent seasons (like this one) where we were THISCLOSE to having scenarios similar to this.
For that reason, I think banning non-Conference Champions from the National Title game is a little short-sighted.[/quote]
Well using made up hypotheticals can get a little silly, but I would stick with my statement that without a playoff where you win it on the field I do not want to see teams that dont win their own conference in the title game.
As it is now, the conference title can be seen as some sort of playoff or culling system.
This is why Div-I college football is so screwy right now, people are so use to subjective polls and rankings that they are willing to ignore what happens on the actual field.
If you cant win your own conference, screw you. If you lose your conference title game, screw you. I would prefer to see an 8 or 16 team playoff. Football is about a game of strapping it up and taking it to the field. Save the water cooler discussions for politics or figure skating.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
tedro wrote:
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
this case, LSU because they are ranked higher than the others.
You’re just saying that because you’re an LSU fan.
I’m an OU fan, and I think THEY should go, since they’re really 12-1 instead of 11-2.
Haha, yeah a bit of a die-hard.
But really, this is the biggest problem. OU is 12-1, but ranked lower than the 11-2 Tigers. Why’s that? I don’t know, but it really makes chosing the fourth team a bitch.[/quote]
They’d have to do a coin flip at some road-side truck stop ala Friday Night Lights…
b.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
tedro wrote:
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
this case, LSU because they are ranked higher than the others.
You’re just saying that because you’re an LSU fan.
I’m an OU fan, and I think THEY should go, since they’re really 12-1 instead of 11-2.
Haha, yeah a bit of a die-hard.
But really, this is the biggest problem. OU is 12-1, but ranked lower than the 11-2 Tigers. Why’s that? I don’t know, but it really makes chosing the fourth team a bitch.
They’d have to do a coin flip at some road-side truck stop ala Friday Night Lights…
b.
[/quote]
Nah, that would start a riot.
Gonna be a close game, but belive that florida is gonna come out of this with another win.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
Haha, yeah a bit of a die-hard.
But really, this is the biggest problem. OU is 12-1, but ranked lower than the 11-2 Tigers. Why’s that? I don’t know, but it really makes chosing the fourth team a bitch.[/quote]
This season, unlike most others, I don’t really care if OU gets in, gets left out, whatever.
They’ve already exceeded expectations so much this year that anything more is just gravy.
I’m more proud of this OU team than any other except the 2000 Title team because of all the pitfalls they’ve overcome.
Lose their QB in fall camp, have a W stolen at Oregon, suffer a tough loss to Texas, lose the Heisman-caliber RB for the season, lose the backup RB for a couple of games, and STILL scratch their way to an 11-2 Big XII Championship season?! Win one more game and finish 12-2 and possibly in the Top 5?!! Whoudathunkit?
I’m sooo proud of this team, and so sad that they’ve only got one more game left.
But at least they’re returning almost everybody but the QB next year. I think 2007 could be a special season for OU.
[quote]WhiteLable412 wrote:
Gonna be a close game, but belive that florida is gonna come out of this with another win.[/quote]
I only hope UF wins to justify their being in that bowl and to boost the SEC. However, I think it will be a very tough game, and the score may get out of hand. This will be a game where minor mistakes will cause grave consequences. And as good as OSU is, they better not underestimate UF. UF doesn’t win stunningly. They just win, and will pull an upset if given a chance.
[quote]WhiteLable412 wrote:
Gonna be a close game, but belive that florida is gonna come out of this with another win.[/quote]
You’ve gotta be kidding me. Have you actually looked at the stats of these teams or even watched both play for that matter? [with a comment like that]
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
tedro wrote:
How are you going to choose that fourth team?
2006 - LSU, Wisconsin, OU, Louisville, or Boise State?
this case, LSU because they are ranked higher than the others.[/quote]
But they didn’t even win their conference championship. Would you really take them over Big 12 champ OU, who should only have one loss, and Boise State, who has done nothing to merit their exclusion from a Championship game? What more can you do than win all your games? Most of which weren’t even close.