OT The NCAA Football Season Discussion

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:49 am

Honest question here--everyone talks about how tough the SEC is this year, what did they do out-of-conference to earn that rep? Tenn's big win against Cal? Anything else? They were a highly rated conference going into the year, which is an obvious advantage for strength-of-schedule calculations.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:57 am

I don't think when people say the SEC is the best conference they are saying their teams are better than all the teams in other conferences. What they are saying is there are 5 or 6 teams that can beat each other in any given week.

LSU, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and this year Arkansas.. all of those teams could beat each other in any given week. I think most people believe the other major conferences have one or two good teams and they are much better than everyone else in their conference.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:25 pm

For me it's a no brainer.

12-1 SEC champ over 11-1 Big 10 #2 team any day. When you factor in Strength of Schedule, quality wins, etc, it makes it an even easier decision imo. Not to mention, Michigan already had their bite at the apple and came up short.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:31 pm

bkrich83 wrote:For me it's a no brainer.

12-1 SEC champ over 11-1 Big 10 #2 team any day. When you factor in Strength of Schedule, quality wins, etc, it makes it an even easier decision imo. Not to mention, Michigan already had their bite at the apple and came up short.

I agree, but that does not make it any easier for a Georgia fan to swallow. I do try and pull for the SEC and I don't like OSU at all but I still hope Florida gets smoked.

grtwhtsk · Post by **grtwhtsk** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:31 pm

I still think that the pollsters could have moved Michigan down further two weeks ago. To be jumped twice without having played a game just doesn't seem right. Michigan should have been number 4 (or best 3) after losing to Ohio State. It seems to me that the pollsters the last 2 weeks have been voting for the game that they'd rather see instead of who they really believe is the number 2 team in the country. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:36 pm

bdunn13 wrote:
bkrich83 wrote:For me it's a no brainer.

12-1 SEC champ over 11-1 Big 10 #2 team any day. When you factor in Strength of Schedule, quality wins, etc, it makes it an even easier decision imo. Not to mention, Michigan already had their bite at the apple and came up short.
I agree, but that does not make it any easier for a Georgia fan to swallow. I do try and pull for the SEC and I don't like OSU at all but I still hope Florida gets smoked.

To be honest, outside of the traditional Rose Bowl matchup of USC vs. Michigan, there isn't a BCS Bowl game matchup that I am all that fired up about. I really could care less about all the other BCS games. I'll watch the title game, because it's the title game, but the others? Probably just watch the Rose.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:55 pm

I'm a Michigan fan because of Hart, yet I don't have a problem with Florida going to the national title game.

Florida and Michigan each had one loss. Florida won the toughest conference in the land and had the toughest schedule in the nation.

Michigan had its shot at Ohio State and lost. Now it's Florida's turn.

I'm still pretty geeked about a USC-Michigan Rose Bowl. Two teams that traditionally should be in Pasadena. Plus I think it will be a better football game than the national championship game.

All the national title game will prove is that Ohio St. is clearly the No. 1 team in the nation and that all of this squabbling about who is No. 2 is irrelevant.

Plus any team into the Buckeyes' wood chipper, and the outcome will be like the poor guy in the trunk in "Fargo." Then Tressel and Troy Smith will go to Brainerd, have pancakes and get laid.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:58 pm

bkrich83 wrote:To be honest, outside of the traditional Rose Bowl matchup of USC vs. Michigan, there isn't a BCS Bowl game matchup that I am all that fired up about. I really could care less about all the other BCS games. I'll watch the title game, because it's the title game, but the others? Probably just watch the Rose.

I'll watch Notre Dame just to see it get pummeled for the umpteenth straight year in a bowl.

Take care,
PK

icvu42 · Post by **icvu42** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:58 pm

grtwhtsk wrote:I still think that the pollsters could have moved Michigan down further two weeks ago. To be jumped twice without having played a game just doesn't seem right. Michigan should have been number 4 (or best 3) after losing to Ohio State. It seems to me that the pollsters the last 2 weeks have been voting for the game that they'd rather see instead of who they really believe is the number 2 team in the country. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

I agree 100% with what you said.

Let me also ask....

Had Michigan lost to Ohio State by the same score the first week of September, then run off 11 in a row, would the voters feel different about them? One of the problems with this system is that it rewards team that lose early by giving them the rest of the season to catch up. I'm sorry but one loss is one loss, regardless of when you get it.

Rick

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 pm

icvu42 wrote:
grtwhtsk wrote:I still think that the pollsters could have moved Michigan down further two weeks ago. To be jumped twice without having played a game just doesn't seem right. Michigan should have been number 4 (or best 3) after losing to Ohio State. It seems to me that the pollsters the last 2 weeks have been voting for the game that they'd rather see instead of who they really believe is the number 2 team in the country. Anyway, that's just my opinion.
I agree 100% with what you said.

Let me also ask....

Had Michigan lost to Ohio State by the same score the first week of September, then run off 11 in a row, would the voters feel different about them? One of the problems with this system is that it rewards team that lose early by giving them the rest of the season to catch up. I'm sorry but one loss is one loss, regardless of when you get it.

Rick

For me it wouldn't matter. 12-1 SEC champ goes over 11-1 Big 10 runner up, any day of the week. UF also played a tougher schedule, and had more wins vs. quality opponents.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:17 pm

pk500 wrote:
bkrich83 wrote:To be honest, outside of the traditional Rose Bowl matchup of USC vs. Michigan, there isn't a BCS Bowl game matchup that I am all that fired up about. I really could care less about all the other BCS games. I'll watch the title game, because it's the title game, but the others? Probably just watch the Rose.
I'll watch Notre Dame just to see it get pummeled for the umpteenth straight year in a bowl.

Take care,
PK

Wow. 28 posts between bashing ND. Has to be a record for this forum.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:26 pm

pk500 wrote:
bkrich83 wrote:To be honest, outside of the traditional Rose Bowl matchup of USC vs. Michigan, there isn't a BCS Bowl game matchup that I am all that fired up about. I really could care less about all the other BCS games. I'll watch the title game, because it's the title game, but the others? Probably just watch the Rose.
I'll watch Notre Dame just to see it get pummeled for the umpteenth straight year in a bowl.

Take care,
PK

There is that. But watching ND teams that have no business being in BCS Bowls, getting rolled has become redundant.

I am 35 years old. I was a Sr. in college the last time ND won a bowl game.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:48 pm

I am pretty excited to see how Matt Stafford does against the D of Va Tech. I think this Georgia team has improved more at the end of the season than the good Georgia teams in the past few years. For a Dawg, its a nice sign showing the players respect and won't fold under Richt.

I thought we were overrated at the beginning of the season. However, now we are ranked around 26 or so and I think we are underrated. I think we should be around 19. If we take care of business and beat Va Tech, that will take care of itself.

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:48 pm

That's the argument, though? Michigan should play in the title game because they have the better loss? They gave up 42 points and 500+ yards. And no, OSU didn't win on the final play or any such nonsense. Ohio State lead the entire game (practically) and was never in a position to lose. Michigan scored a late TD (I still think the score should have ended 42-31, but that's another story) to make it 42-39 and lost an onside kick. It was a great game, a close game, and Michigan is a damn good team, but the notion that OSU was somehow lucky to win or won as the gun sounded is just flat wrong. You win the turnover battle 3-0 in the OSU/Michigan game and still lose -- you get what you deserve, in this case, the Rose Bowl.

Michigan gets in because it's unfair they played OSU in Columbus? That's batshit crazy Alex. Let's just not have home games all together and have everyone play in the Metrodome or something so we can take the weather factor away, too. Home field advantage is what it is -- an advantage. Next year, OSU goes to UM. It's part of the sport. I guess every home team needs to win by what, 7 points, in order for it to really count as a W? Florida lost AT Auburn on an extremely controversial call. Do they not get the same benefit?

As for fear, well, you give a team enough tries and they will eventually win. But playing Michigan with Troy Smith...I don't think OSU is the one who really fears that considering Smith has owned Michigan for three years now. It's not like Michigan solved the riddle or anything.

My argument against a rematch, prior to the Nov 18th game, is that I wanted The Game to mean something. It was the most electric atmosphere I have ever experienced at a sporting event. A game like that HAS to mean something to both the winner and the loser. A rematch makes that game completely meaningless; a footnote in the history of the rivalry. The idea that the winner of that game only earned the right to play the same team again I think is bullshit to the nth degree.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:53 pm

To refresh my memory about the championship rematch between FSU and UF in 1996, I went back and looked at some of the stuff printed at that time. It was pretty much as a I remember it. Unlike this season, there was really no alternative to the rematch - in other words, there was no team other than UF that could have played FSU in that Sugar Bowl game. The reason for this is that was before the Rose Bowl was part of the BCS, so one loss Ohio State and undefeated Arizona State were obligated to play in that game. The only other alternative for FSU in the Sugar Bowl would have been 13-1 BYU - and they had only played one ranked team all season (Washington) and had lost to them.

It originally looked, after FSU beat UF in Tallahassee, that FSU would play Nebraska for the NC. But Texas upset Nebraska in the Big 12 Championship game and UF won the SEC Championship game. That setup the rematch.

Let me tell you that there is nothing worse than having to play your rival a second time for the National Championship.

I often think about what would have happened if BYU had won against Washington. Then there would have been no way to keep the Cougars out of the BCS and FSU would have most likely won the NC.

I imagine that there are plenty of Ohio State fans who also think about the fact that if they had beat Michigan that they would have gone into the Rose Bowl undefeated and #1 and that would not have changed no matter who FSU played in a bowl. It is entirely possible that Ohio State had the best team in the country that season, but they had a coach (John Cooper) who could not beat Michigan.

The college system has been so screwed up that you can make a case just about every season for a different champion.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:56 pm

Ex. No. 134,342 demonstrating that voting in athletics should be reserved for gymnastics, figure skating and other such exhibtions.

It also reinforces my standard argument when debating whether things like golf or racing are sports. Both are clearly real sports when compared to the beauty contest and politics of NCAA Football.

I was glad to see that the NCAA hoodwinked Fox into broadcasting a show announcing their annual lineup of post-season exhibition games. That's just smart business.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:59 pm

So wait, people wouldn't have a problem with an OSU-Michigan rematch if there were playoffs.

But they're opposed to it in the context of the present system.

And many of those people who oppose the rematch are in favor of the playoff system or hate the current system?

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:03 pm

I agree that big games are supposed to mean something and it sucks when they don't - even when it is your team that benefits.

For example, in 1993 FSU lost to Notre Dame, but 'won' the national championship vote in both polls over a 1 loss ND team. Sure, ND lost at home to BC, but they beat FSU. And it is not like FSU walked over Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, they squeaked out a win in a game with a controversial touchdown that should have been ruled an FSU fumble and turnover.

And just a few years ago FSU lost to Miami but won the BCS numbers game and played Oklahoma.

How can such a great sport have such a crappy system for determining a champion?

And I am not saying that UF doesn't deserve to play for it all, but it would be a lot more interesting to have a 4 team playoff and then there would be no questions. If I had to make a decision, what would make me come down on the UF side is that they won their conference and Michigan did not.

BTW, since it is not something I get the chance to say very often, let me say it while i can: Congratulations to the Wake Forest Demon Deacons. Your 2006 ACC Football Champions!

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:14 pm

wco81 wrote:So wait, people wouldn't have a problem with an OSU-Michigan rematch if there were playoffs.

But they're opposed to it in the context of the present system.

And many of those people who oppose the rematch are in favor of the playoff system or hate the current system?

I'd have a problem with a rematch with OSU #1 and Michigan #3. What the hell kinda seeding would that be? When does #1 and #3 play in the first round of a playoff system? There are numerous ways a playoff could work, all of them nearly as controversial as the BCS, unfortuntely.

John Feinstein says 6 teams, w/ 2 first round byes (OSU/FLA in this case) with Michigan, LSU, USC, and Louisville rounding out the field. Wisky, Boise St. sure wouldn't like that idea this year.

Many others say 16 teams with 11 conference winners and 5 at large teams. This would allow Ohio State to play a team like Middle Tennessee State in rnd 1, which is a way to reward OSU's regular season by offering a fairly easy opening game. A 16 team system is a logistical nightmare.

There are 8 team formats, 12 team formats, and the also popular +1 idea where the top 4 teams play their BCS bowl game and the 2 winners play for a title. None of those pits OSU/Michigan together immidiately following their regular season finale.

Still, the BCS does not work. It just doesn't. The only way it does work is if you finish with 2 (and only 2) undefeated teams from a major conference. If that doesn't happen, this is what we get. Every single year.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:14 pm

kevinpars wrote:
How can such a great sport have such a crappy system for determining a champion?

Entrenched money.

Not just money, but the money that's backed the game since time immemorial. A smartly-constructed playoff would make more money than the current system, but would challenge the current power structure. They can't tolerate that.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:25 pm

kevinpars wrote:
How can such a great sport have such a crappy system for determining a champion?

It's not really any worse than many others. There is no way to determine a true champion where every single team has had the same opportunity, where if even the true weakest team were to win every game than that team would be the champion. Not when there are over 100 teams and when there is no standards at all for consistent scheduling. There is always going to be a need for some kind of subjectivity.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:36 pm

Kazuya wrote: There is always going to be a need for some kind of subjectivity.

Agreed. A playoff system creates as many problems as it solves.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:54 am

bdunn13 wrote:
Kazuya wrote: There is always going to be a need for some kind of subjectivity.
Agreed. A playoff system creates as many problems as it solves.

Until they change this royally screwed up process, college football will remain an exciting series of exhibition games that give the students and alumni a reason to start drinking at 7:00 a.m. and something to argue about on Mondays.

hellbent · Post by **hellbent** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:08 pm

Brando70 wrote:
bdunn13 wrote:
Kazuya wrote: There is always going to be a need for some kind of subjectivity.
Agreed. A playoff system creates as many problems as it solves.
Until they change this royally screwed up process, college football will remain an exciting series of exhibition games that give the students and alumni a reason to start drinking at 7:00 a.m. and something to argue about on Mondays.

A playoff system is destined to be flawed, as is ANY National Championship System that could possibly be designed. The fact remains that it's still a big step forward compared to letting a computer/biased press corps/school pr depts etc anoint a #1 and #2 and having them duke it out. Yeah, depending on the system used to choose what teams participate, there will be some bubble teams left out. Tough s***. This happens every year in the NCAA basketball tourney, and people live with it.

At least you'd be giving 12 (or however many) teams a chance to win the title instead of just picking 2. There's usually a little hissy fit by one team or another that misses the NCAA basketball tourney every year on selection sunday, then they are quickly forgotten about when the tourney starts. Yeah, you'd have to pick a lot less teams to participate, but the outcome of a playoff would be a lot more satisfying than the BCS system currently in place.

I agree totally with the earlier post about the only reason we don't have a playoff is the old money that makes big-time jack off the current bowl system. The NCAA has proven time and time again they don't give a crap about player academic status, potential for injuries, etc when there is money to be made. The excuses they use year after year as to why there is not a playoff get more ridiculous every passing year.

Oh well, at least we get to see a couple of really good matchups this year... OSU/UF and UMich/USC should be great.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:29 pm

hellbent wrote:A playoff system is destined to be flawed, as is ANY National Championship System that could possibly be designed. The fact remains that it's still a big step forward compared to letting a computer/biased press corps/school pr depts etc anoint a #1 and #2 and having them duke it out.

Don't forget to add a d*uchebag of a coach into that process, too. Urban Meyer shamelessly plugged Florida and disparaged Michigan ever since Michigan lost to Ohio State.

Pimping your program is cool. Doing it at the expense of another is not.

Take care,
PK