So it took a bit of searching (ESPN’s quick with taking those poll results down) but here’s the map I was referencing:
(Scroll down to the second blog entry)
And again, you’re wrong. California, Nevada, Washington, New Mexico, a bunch of those square states in the middle, the entire Northeast.
None of this matters, of course. I just hate people calling me out when they’re wrong.
[quote]jimg21 wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Michigan got screwed?
I remember 2001 when CU won the Big 12", and blew out Nebraska the day after thanksgiving, marched into a “neutral” site in Texas and beat Texas.
Next thing I know, Nebraska goes to the national title game to play Miami without having won their DIVISION MUCH LESS THEIR CONFERENCE.
I will always hate the BCS for this.
As for Michigan getting “screwed”… yeah right. they already lost to OSU. Next opponent (why not show some SEC love?)
On a side note, what’s the deal with Notre Dame? Why do the polls have to kiss that ass so much? What a bunch of shit. They definately don’t deserve BCS action after getting anihilated by the only 2 top 25 teams they played.
nobody will ever be content with this shit. we just need to accept this as being better than the last system (split championships virtually every year). At least this way we have the opportunity to have 1 champion every 5 years and 2 all the others.
As a Nebraska fan, I have to agree with you. NU had no business playing Miami and it showed. The BCS is jacked up.
Almost as bad as CU and their “5th down year” 
I’m glad Florida gets a shot. I have heard that the SEC is not as tough as they usually are but that has to be the toughest conference overall.
[/quote]
I have never agreed about anything with anyone who’s a Cornhusker fan before. I think this could be the start to world peace.
Crazy Buckeye Fan here and here’s my opinion:
Who deserves to be #2 in the BCS? Florida
Why? They beat Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas which is mroe impressive than Michigan beating Notre Dame, Wisconsin
Who do I think is the second best team in the nation? LSU but if the question is between Michigan and Florida then…
on a neutral field Michigan would win (in my opinion obviously)…
however they didn’t play so you have to decide based on merit not hypotheticals
As for the SEC being a “superior” conference? Hardly…name a BIG SEC out of conference road win?
Pac 10
USC over Arkansas
Big 10
Ohio State over Texas
Big 12
Oklahoma over Oregon
If you had to rank the conferences then yeah the SEC (right now) is the toughest but lets not exaggerate their speed and strength (other schools recruit the state of Florida too) Over the last 5 years you could have argued that the Big 10, Big 12, or Pac 10 have been the best.
And to the guy who thinks Big 10 football is boring? Let me point out a few things:
Georgia’s pass offense, how many different QB’s failed to do anything this year? The answers 3 by the way
Auburn’s pass offense, Irons and Lester are fun to watch but when you can’t pick up 3rd and 4 then yeah its time to turn the channel yawn
Arkansas’s pass offense, what a waste of a great defense and a fabolous pair of running backs in Darren McFadden and Felix Jones
That’s 3 elite SEC teams that on 3rd and long have almost zero chance to hand the ball the quarterback and pick up the first down.
I mean your best team (Florida) has to take out the starting quarterback whenever they have to pick up a crucial 3rd down…and how good are SEC defenses if they can’t stop QB runs when the other team basically tells them when they are going to run them?
I’m not even mentioning: Miss State, Ole Miss, Alabama, Kentucky or Vanderbilt
Whatever, you called me out and I showed you were wrong. Deal with it.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to all of these games, especially the Meineke Car Care Bowl…Let’s go Eagles…ugh, I can’t even pretend to be excited about this one.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know what your point or stance on the article is, but I think it was cool to see. I also think it is pretty accurate in terms of ranking the teams.
So, according to that, the Chargers and the Bears would play for the title. Do you disagree? I don’t. Over the course of the season, counting each game, these two teams have proven their superiority.
“Over the course of the entire season.”
That’s the key. With a playoff, it’s about who gets hot come playoff time. In college football, it’s about who can perform, week-in and week-out, for the entire season.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
Semantics dude, if FLA hadn’t recovered that fumble in the endzone we wouldn’t be having this conversation either.
b.
[/quote]
Absolutely! I’m surprised Florida got rewarded for SOMEONE ELSE’S INCOMPETENCE. So, let’s suppose they won by 3.
Michigan lost by 3 IN COLUMBUS, and gave OSU new life with a helmet-to-helmet penalty late.
No way Michigan should be out of it.
BTW: Michigan grad, Ohio resident. Go figure… 
[quote]malonetd wrote:
That’s the key. With a playoff, it’s about who gets hot come playoff time. In college football, it’s about who can perform, week-in and week-out, for the entire season.
[/quote]
You think playoffs are only about who gets hot?
If you are a good team, you should prove it on the field. If, in a playoff scenario, USC can’t show up to play against…say…Louisville (sp) - then they don’t deserve to go on.
You want to take the underdog out of the equation - and I think that is the best part of sports - playoff or not.
I still say a 16 team playoff bracket will do more to legitimize the D1 college football puzzle than any of the other options.
If it’s good enough for all the other NCAA divisions - why not D1?
It’s not like we are re-inventing the wheel here.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know what your point or stance on the article is, but I think it was cool to see. I also think it is pretty accurate in terms of ranking the teams.
So, according to that, the Chargers and the Bears would play for the title. Do you disagree? I don’t. Over the course of the season, counting each game, these two teams have proven their superiority.
“Over the course of the entire season.”
That’s the key. With a playoff, it’s about who gets hot come playoff time. In college football, it’s about who can perform, week-in and week-out, for the entire season.
[/quote]
I just thought it was an interesting point of comparison.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
That’s the key. With a playoff, it’s about who gets hot come playoff time. In college football, it’s about who can perform, week-in and week-out, for the entire season.
You think playoffs are only about who gets hot?
If you are a good team, you should prove it on the field. If, in a playoff scenario, USC can’t show up to play against…say…Louisville (sp) - then they don’t deserve to go on.
You want to take the underdog out of the equation - and I think that is the best part of sports - playoff or not.
I still say a 16 team playoff bracket will do more to legitimize the D1 college football puzzle than any of the other options.
If it’s good enough for all the other NCAA divisions - why not D1?
It’s not like we are re-inventing the wheel here. [/quote]
That is right as well. The playoffs are not at all only about who gets hot.
[quote]PackFM wrote:
Crazy Buckeye Fan here and here’s my opinion:
As for the SEC being a “superior” conference? Hardly…name a BIG SEC out of conference road win?
Pac 10
USC over Arkansas
Big 10
Ohio State over Texas
Big 12
[/quote]
You are right. There were hardly any Big SEC out of conference wins? But if you are a smart coach in the SEC you are not going to schedule a lot of other powerhouse teams from other conferences b/c once you’re done with that game you still have to play an SEC schedule.
So why cut your own throat by scheduling another highly competitive team when you know your conference schedule is harder than many of the other team’s schedules in other conferences?
Hell, OSU only really played a 4 game schedule that included Texas, Iowa, Michigan, and Penn State. The other teams they played: N Illinois, Cincy, BGU, Mich St, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, N’western were all a joke. With that kind of schedule does OSU even deserve a #1 ranking?
I found this website that ranks Strength of schedule for all 119 D-I teams:
GBE College Football Ratings
Florida’s S.O.S ranked 5th while OSU ranked 69th. Of the top 25 teams with the strongest schedules:
SEC - 7
P10 - 7
B10 - 4
B12 - 2
All 12 of the SEC schools had a stronger schedule than OSU. Michigan was ranked 24th, Penn State 37th, and Wisconsin 102. So, if a teams schedule is mostly comprised of conference games how would an SEC team benefit from playing another top opponent from another conference? They wouldn’t!! You play a physical team from another conference and then have to turn around and play an LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia or Tennessee. Give me a break. You would be stupid to do that if you are a coach especially when teams like OSU play a ridiculously weak schedule.
Next time please look into the facts a little more carefully before you make another assinine comment.
Sincerely,
Mr. Obatiger11
“Stating the facts for Dumbasses since 1979”
GO FIU!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
That’s the key. With a playoff, it’s about who gets hot come playoff time. In college football, it’s about who can perform, week-in and week-out, for the entire season.
You think playoffs are only about who gets hot?
If you are a good team, you should prove it on the field. If, in a playoff scenario, USC can’t show up to play against…say…Louisville (sp) - then they don’t deserve to go on.
You want to take the underdog out of the equation - and I think that is the best part of sports - playoff or not.
I still say a 16 team playoff bracket will do more to legitimize the D1 college football puzzle than any of the other options.
If it’s good enough for all the other NCAA divisions - why not D1?
It’s not like we are re-inventing the wheel here. [/quote]
I think the point some people have tried to make is that college football is unique in that the entire body of the season is considered. It’s not a question of “good enough for all the other NCAA divisions”, it’s that the way the D1 national championship for college football is decided right now, the entire season is taken into consideration. I think that’s a pretty cool thing and I like how it IS DIFFERENT than other sports. Obviously others disagree.
I understand that a playoff is not entirely about who gets hot at the end, but realistically, it mostly is. It also would, without a doubt, lessen the impact of the regular season. A team like Texas or USC or Ohio State would be in the playoffs just about every year, so slipping up a couple of times during the season wouldn’t really matter.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
That’s the key. With a playoff, it’s about who gets hot come playoff time. In college football, it’s about who can perform, week-in and week-out, for the entire season.
You think playoffs are only about who gets hot?
If you are a good team, you should prove it on the field. If, in a playoff scenario, USC can’t show up to play against…say…Louisville (sp) - then they don’t deserve to go on.
You want to take the underdog out of the equation - and I think that is the best part of sports - playoff or not.
I still say a 16 team playoff bracket will do more to legitimize the D1 college football puzzle than any of the other options.
If it’s good enough for all the other NCAA divisions - why not D1?
It’s not like we are re-inventing the wheel here. [/quote]
Yes, I do think the playoffs are mostly about who gets hot and who is playing well enough to win 3 or 4 tough games in row at the end of the season.
Also, In my mind, the playoff debate isn’t just about being “good enough” for other divisions and sports. It’s about D-1 being unique among sports. I like it that way.
I will admit, you’ve hit on something that I haven’t really thought much about in this whole debate – underdogs. I’m not sure where I stand on this right now. On one hand, I love to see an underdog beat the odds and bring down Goliath. On the other hand I don’t want to see teams get lucky and win championships. But I guess, sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.
The role of an underdog doesn’t exist much in college football. Sure there are sometimes heavy favorites in the big bowl games that get upset, but it’s not in the same scope of the Patriots beating the Rams in '01. I never gave it much thought before.
Yes, teams get upset in the regular season every year by unranked teams, but nothing really happens of it. The favorite is probably knocked out of title contention, but not much happens for the underdog. Oh, maybe they’ll crack the top 25, but what is that?
There’s just no big national championship caliber upsets in college football (at least not that I can think of off the top of my head). You’ve given me something new to think about and I have to decide if I like college football better with or without the underdogs. Right now, I’m not sure.
ok…for all the Florida supporters. your all against a rematch for the final…correct??..hmmm did you all feel the same in 1996?..remember that year…FSU went 11-0…F went 11-1…who beat Florida that year??..oh year FSU…but…Florida got a rematch in the Sugar Bowl for all the marbles…so…if they deserved a rematch…why not Michigan???
yeah…it’s only good if it’s an SEC team gettin the benefits…right??..hippocrits