NCAA Football

[CrushOfVeils80]

You don't upset me in the least. I just skip most of your posts (in this thread, anyway).

 

Yes, they've got boatloads of money. We get it. But your continued use of $ symbols says a lot more about you than it does about them.

 

 

Again, I will get over you skiping my posts, I understand its probably obnoxious but it's like chewing your fingernails or smoking, its a bad habit....what it says about me (I will give my opinion about what I say about myself if you dont mind?) is that I hate the southern cal and the horns annoy me, I dont hate them but rooting for them is like rooting for the dealer in blackjack or for Justin Timberlake to get the hot girl into bed

[CrushOfVeils80]

I post on a couple of sports boards and have never seen anyone use a $. Must be a Texas thing.

 

 

$teve $purrier...or Lou Holth$...or Hootie & the Blowfi$h...none of these look familiar? If not I'm sorry, good luck vs Clemson...see, no $

[watch me fall]

$teve $purrier...or Lou Holth$...or Hootie & the Blowfi$h...none of these look familiar? If not I'm sorry, good luck vs Clemson...see, no $

 

Clever.

[cryptique]

what it says about me (I will give my opinion about what I say about myself if you dont mind?) is that I hate the southern cal and the horns annoy me, I dont hate them but rooting for them is like rooting for the dealer in blackjack or for Justin Timberlake to get the hot girl into bed

If that's what you think it says about you, then good for you.

[CrushOfVeils80]

Clever.

 

 

I do hope you beat Clemson though...I go to the CWS every year and root for the Cocks when they are here, Ray Tanner is a great baseball coach

 

If that's what you think it says about you, then good for you.

 

yea! you let me be myself

[MrRain422]

Cmon, would they finish in the top half of the Big 12 or SEC?

 

 

I doubt it, but I don't know and neither do you. So why not let them play against the Big 12 champ and then we can find out?

 

I bet they would have a decent chance of going undefeated in the Big Ten, and if they did, then they'd probably be in the national championship game. And yes, the Big Ten is weak, but that's exactly my point -- teams are being judged based on the name of the conference they play in, and teams that are not from those 6 conferences are not even considered for the championship game no matter how good they are. Perhaps scheduling stronger non-conference games would make a difference, but those national powerhouses would still need to agree to play them, which they don't often seem interested in doing.

 

Basically I agree with you that those teams should play against the national powerhouses. And the only way to force them to is in a playoff. So why are you opposed to it?

[CrushOfVeils80]

Utah can play UT in Tempe and we will see what the Utes have to offer, I will be rooting for them but I dont think so

[Rusty Shackleford]

I understand Stoops's point. But the only problem with his argument is that if everyone wins next week, Tech is so far out of it, that it does only come down to an evaluation of Oklahoma or Texas. In that scenario, Texas wins. Or at least should win.

 

You're certainly not the only person making this argument, but frankly it makes no sense. I mean, if OU had played Tech close for a half and then put them away in the 4th quarter, we'd have a "real" three-way tie, but because OU beat the hell out of them, the victory (and Texas's loss to Tech) don't count?

 

This is a fascinating year for the voters, because it's showing how silly the beauty contest really is. Sure, Texas beat OU fair and square (with the exceptions of 2 ridiculous personal foul calls and a miss on Lamont Robinson's interception), but if that means Texas *has* to be ahead of OU, then Tech has to be ahead of Texas. Sure, Texas's loss was on the road, but Texas got to play (and beat) OSU at home in a game that was similarly close, and besides, I don't believe for a second that Owen Field provides the Sooners with a 44-point home field advantage.

 

This has always been a problem for the voters--head to head means everything when comparing two teams that are perceived to be equally good, but gets thrown out the window when teams are not perceived to be equally good. Thus, OU's loss to a great Texas team could be fatal, while Florida's home loss to mediocre Ole Miss is forgiven as a fluke. Go figure...

[bleedorange]

You're certainly not the only person making this argument, but frankly it makes no sense. I mean, if OU had played Tech close for a half and then put them away in the 4th quarter, we'd have a "real" three-way tie, but because OU beat the hell out of them, the victory (and Texas's loss to Tech) don't count?

 

This is a fascinating year for the voters, because it's showing how silly the beauty contest really is. Sure, Texas beat OU fair and square (with the exceptions of 2 ridiculous personal foul calls and a miss on Lamont Robinson's interception), but if that means Texas *has* to be ahead of OU, then Tech has to be ahead of Texas. Sure, Texas's loss was on the road, but Texas got to play (and beat) OSU at home in a game that was similarly close, and besides, I don't believe for a second that Owen Field provides the Sooners with a 44-point home field advantage.

 

This has always been a problem for the voters--head to head means everything when comparing two teams that are perceived to be equally good, but gets thrown out the window when teams are not perceived to be equally good. Thus, OU's loss to a great Texas team could be fatal, while Florida's home loss to mediocre Ole Miss is forgiven as a fluke. Go figure...

 

I completely agree, especially with your last paragraph. I was just making the argument for Texas, because in the end, someone is going to get screwed.

 

I'm not sure how my previous argument doesn't make any sense, though. Because I think the overall total resumes of both Oklahoma and Texas are very similar. OU played a couple of better teams out of conference in TCU and Cincinnati, but also played an FCS team and the worst team in FBS in Washington.

 

Texas beat the Big 12 North champion, Missouri, which Oklahoma didn't play. Texas had the more impressive win over Kansas, although this could be nullified by a less impressive showing against A&M.

 

Oklahoma has the most impressive win with its showing against Tech, but Texas has a similar win against Missouri.

 

And Texas beat Oklahoma.

 

Tech has the least impressive overall resume complete with two FCS schools.

 

And you bring up bad calls in the Texas-Oklahoma game as if there weren't any that went OU's way.

[Rusty Shackleford]

And you bring up bad calls in the Texas-Oklahoma game as if there weren't any that went OU's way.

 

Oh, I know. If I really wanted to whine about that game, I'd point out that we played the 2nd half without a middle linebacker, a problem we've since remedied.

 

Every year something happens that makes people say the BCS is broken. I personally think giving a 2-loss LSU team a home game for the national title was the final straw, but this season's craziness and probable unfairness might finally do it in.

 

That said, we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I'm guessing that at least one final crazy thing will happen, since it always does: OSU over OU, or Baylor over Tech, or FSU over Florida, or Auburn over Bama, or Mizzou over the south winner.

[CrushOfVeils80]

Florida could lose to FSU this weekend, it wouldnt be a shocker, its a rivalry game and FSU is starting to play well and its in Tally, I dont think this will happen but stranger things have, I think Florida would then beat Bamain the SEC title game which would set up an OU-UT rematch in the national title game if they both win out, which would be fun

 

As someone who obviously watches Big 12 games (Husker fan here) the Big 12 has some of the worst refs in America

[jakobnicholas]

I don't have a favorite team in the Big 12 South. I'm a Kansas grad.

 

 

 

But I think Texas deserves the South title if it wins this week.

 

 

I cannot get past the fact that Texas beat Oklahoma on a NEUTRAL FIELD. Yes, Texas perhaps over-achieved in the game and got a very helpful kick return. But they won the game. And it wasn't terribly close. Sorry Oklahoma.

 

Texas lost to Texas Tech, on the road, on a play that defies explanation. I still don't know how Crabtree, 1 - caught the ball and, 2 -stayed in bounds. Had the Texas defender simply let him catch it, then push him out of bounds, Texas is most likely undefeated.

 

 

Saying all that, I DO think that right now, Oklahoma is the best team. If OU played Texas on a neutral field this weekend, I guarantee Oklahoma would be 3 or 4-point favorite.

 

But until we get a playoff, we can only go on what we know. Oklahoma lost to Texas.

 

 

This all may not matter, as I think Oklahoma State has a VERY good chance of knocking off the Sooners.

[bleedorange]

Oh, I know. If I really wanted to whine about that game, I'd point out that we played the 2nd half without a middle linebacker, a problem we've since remedied.

 

Every year something happens that makes people say the BCS is broken. I personally think giving a 2-loss LSU team a home game for the national title was the final straw, but this season's craziness and probable unfairness might finally do it in.

 

That said, we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I'm guessing that at least one final crazy thing will happen, since it always does: OSU over OU, or Baylor over Tech, or FSU over Florida, or Auburn over Bama, or Mizzou over the south winner.

 

 

There are so many things that could still happen, the possibilities are endless. But I don't know that any situation could arise where we would ever get a playoff, though. Personally, I think it's hilarious and sad that there are so many bowl games with half-empty stadiums and no viewers.

 

An 8-team playoff would be great, preceded by a streamlined bowl system that awards berths based simply on merit as opposed to how many fans they will bring. The fact that Notre Dame would have possibly gone to the Gator Bowl or Cotton Bowl this year until they lost to Syracuse was a shame.

 

The problem is that I guess all these lower-tiered bowls still make enough money to justify their existence. I just don't see how.

[jakobnicholas]

What I find funny, is that I know some who argue that the current system is great because many weeks serve as a playoff throughout the season....each week matters.

 

Jason Whitlock (KC Star and Fox Sports) is a big believer of the current system.

 

 

YET NOW, many AP voters are voting Oklahoma ahead of Texas.

 

 

Until we get a playoff, I think we MUST go by the FACTS that have been laid out. Oklahoma lost to Texas. That should trump any other argument.

 

 

Yes, under this thought process, Texas Tech should also get consideration. But I think most reasonable people would agree that getting throttled and embarrassed late in the season should put a team lower than the others.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I cannot get past the fact that Texas beat Oklahoma on a NEUTRAL FIELD. Yes, Texas perhaps over-achieved in the game and got a very helpful kick return. But they won the game. And it wasn't terribly close. Sorry Oklahoma.

 

Texas lost to Texas Tech, on the road, on a play that defies explanation. I still don't know how Crabtree, 1 - caught the ball and, 2 -stayed in bounds. Had the Texas defender simply let him catch it, then push him out of bounds, Texas is most likely undefeated.

 

First, the OU-Texas game was close, as OU led through three quarters and didn't surrender the lead until their best defensive player went out with an injury. Texas won fair and square, but it was a close game.

 

Everybody points to Texas losing on the last play of the game to Tech, but they seem to forget that Tech led almost the whole game--Texas was down three touchdowns at one point and took its first lead with under 2 minutes to play. That speaks volumes about Texas's resiliency, and if Colt McCoy wins the Heisman it will be because he led that dramatic comeback, but it also means that Tech's victory was not just a last-second fluke.

 

I understand if Texas wins the division due to its head-to-head victory over OU, because it would suck for them to lose out to a team they beat, but there's something ironic about the fact that if OU *loses* this weekend, Texas has no shot at all at the division. Obviously, head-to-head isn't the only consideration.

 

And I also understand that, aside from the divisional tiebreaker, if you're comparing one-loss teams, there's a logic to putting Texas over OU because of the head-to-head win. But there's also an argument that OU has the "best" loss of any one-loss team (and that's actually how the computers are likely to see it). Again, if OU's loss to Texas is fatal, I don't see how Florida's loss to Ole Miss isn't a disqualifier, no matter how bad they beat the Citadel.

[jakobnicholas]

First, the OU-Texas game was close, as OU led through three quarters and didn't surrender the lead until their best defensive player went out with an injury. Texas won fair and square, but it was a close game.

 

Everybody points to Texas losing on the last play of the game to Tech, but they seem to forget that Tech led almost the whole game--Texas was down three touchdowns at one point and took its first lead with under 2 minutes to play. That speaks volumes about Texas's resiliency, and if Colt McCoy wins the Heisman it will be because he led that dramatic comeback, but it also means that Tech's victory was not just a last-second fluke.

 

I understand if Texas wins the division due to its head-to-head victory over OU, because it would suck for them to lose out to a team they beat, but there's something ironic about the fact that if OU *loses* this weekend, Texas has no shot at all at the division. Obviously, head-to-head isn't the only consideration.

 

And I also understand that, aside from the divisional tiebreaker, if you're comparing one-loss teams, there's a logic to putting Texas over OU because of the head-to-head win. But there's also an argument that OU has the "best" loss of any one-loss team (and that's actually how the computers are likely to see it). Again, if OU's loss to Texas is fatal, I don't see how Florida's loss to Ole Miss isn't a disqualifier, no matter how bad they beat the Citadel.

 

 

 

The injury argument shouldn't apply here. MAYBE if the starting QB goes out in the 1st quarter of a game, but losing one player in the 3rd quarter, no matter how good, is just football. I think Kansas' record would be one or two games better if their best reciever, Kerry Meier wasn't limping around the past few games.

 

I'm not saying Tech's win was a fluke. But Texas and McCoy showed me how great they are by overcoming a deficit on the road and getting to a point that they should have won the game. Yes, Texas lost. But that's as much a near-win as a team can get.

 

If Oklahoma loses and Tech and Texas finish tied, I'm OK with Tech representing the South. No matter how fortunate their win was, they deserve to go ahead of Texas. And even though I think Texas is better than Tech, Tech should be in the national title game if were to beat Missouri. This would really suck for Texas fans, but again, Texas lost to Tech. Under the current system, I think its critical to heavily weigh the head-to-head matchup. Everything else is just projecting.

 

Florida's loss isn't fatal, because they get to play the undefeated SEC team in the title game (assuming Alabama and Florida both win). If Florida beats Alabama, they'd both have one loss, with Alabama losing to Florida. Bye-bye Alabama in that case.

 

 

 

If OU, Florida and Alabama all lose this weekend? Maybe a USC-Utah match would make the most sense.

[quarter23cd]

I've always found the whole concept of bowls kind of dumb, to be honest. I mean, when I was a kid I marveled at the idea that on New Years Day it was possible to do nothing but watch football for like 16 hours straight. And when I was in college and the bowls were starting to get more spread out, I guess it was cool to go to a bar any night of the week and there was always a game on. But that's it--bowls are a novelty gig.

 

I mean, really, in what other sport will you find a bunch of teams playing a random exhibition game a month or more after their season ends and have people make a big deal about it? The bowls came about when college football was primarily a regional sport--conference championships were the primary goal and bowls were mostly about bragging rights among teams who don't normally play each other. (not to mention tourism plugs for various warm-weather destinations) And that's it. They weren't designed to be more than that.

 

The BCS was an interesting stab at trying to give them more significance, but clearly flawed. If you really want an undisputed national champion, you can't not have some sort of playoff. Or you could do nothing and just admit that college football is still essentially a regional sport and leave it at that. Right now you essentially have one thing pretending to be the other.

[mpolak21]

Eight team playoff: six major conference winners, one at large from a non-BCS school if it finishes it in the Top Ten, one at large to the highest ranked non BCS conference winner. Regular season is still relevant because teams have to win their conference. It can be done over the three weeks of the bowl season. Doesn't seem to difficult to me.

 

--Mike

[PigSooie]

Since they now play 12 games, why is the bowl eligibility requirement still 6 wins? You went .500 here's a bowl game!

[cryptique]

Eight team playoff: six major conference winners, one at large from a non-BCS school if it finishes it in the Top Ten, one at large to the highest ranked non BCS conference winner. Regular season is still relevant because teams have to win their conference. It can be done over the three weeks of the bowl season. Doesn't seem to difficult to me.

These...

 

one at large from a non-BCS school if it finishes it in the Top Ten, one at large to the highest ranked non BCS conference winner

...sound like they could be referring to the same thing to me. Or is that second one supposed to be "highest-ranked BCS team that didn't win its conference"?

 

I don't think I'll be happy with any system that institutionalizes the dominance of the BCS conferences. I'd be in favor of just taking the top eight teams in the rankings. Of course, that means that in a typical year, no non-BCS teams will be in the playoff, but it also allows for a future in which multiple non-BCS teams could make it. It also means that if a BCS conference is really weak one year, its champion is not guaranteed a spot in the playoff (which I think is a desirable outcome, though some will likely disagree).

[quarter23cd]

It also means that if a BCS conference is really weak one year, its champion is not guaranteed a spot in the playoff (which I think is a desirable outcome, though some will likely disagree).

That seems fair. Most years it will be a non-issue as usually the conference champs will finish high enough to warrant a spot anyway, but this year is a good Exhibit A for a case where it doesn't make sense to guarantee spots.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Isn't a playoff kind of arbitrary as well? Sure it determines who was better on THAT DAY, but is the entirety of the season not important? I am NY Giants fan, but if they played a 7 game series against the Pats last season, I bet they would've been beaten in 5 or 6 games. Was George Mason's basketball team a better team than UCONN in the '05-'06 season? Any team could PERHAPS beat any other on any given day and every team can't play each other, so where do you draw the line? Eight team playoff? So who are the eight teams? Conference champions? If that were the case this year, wouldn't Florida and Alabama be best served by sitting their starters this week in preparation for the SEC Championship rendering traditional rivalry games like AL/Auburn and FL/FSU meaningless? There is no perfect solution and I'm pretty happy with the way the BCS turns out MOST of the time.

[MrRain422]

Sure, the lesser team may win sometimes, but that's true in any sport, and it's at least more fair then picking who gets to play by a combination of voting and computer algorithms -- that's waaaaay more arbitrary. Otherwise, why play any games at all? Just give the award to the pre-season #1.

[OOO]

Yeah, if we had an 8 or 4 team playoff, there would be some strange downsides.

 

For example, if there was a playoff this year, Texas would probably end off being better off to not go to the Big 12 conference game because they can't lose a game they don't play, and would be in the top 4/top 8 at the end of the season, and would be in the playoff. If Oklahoma went to the Big 12 championship and lost, they would definitely drop out of the top 4 with two losses and maybe even the top 8. So you are like, punishing the team by sending them to a championship.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Sure, the lesser team may win sometimes, but that's true in any sport, and it's at least more fair then picking who gets to play by a combination of voting and computer algorithms -- that's waaaaay more arbitrary. Otherwise, why play any games at all? Just give the award to the pre-season #1.

 

But that's the point. Everyone can't play each other, so SOME assessment needs to be made as to who the best teams are. Give me eight teams right now that based on nothing but head-to-head match-ups would qualify for your playoff. It can't be done, so the BCS is at least an effort to make the season itself a playoff while recognizing that everyone can't play each other and everyone's schedule isn't equal.