2007 NCAA Football Discussion

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:14 pm

I think the match ups were designed they way they are for two reasons.

1. The Rose Bowl folks are snobs and did not want an SEC team.

2. The crappy match ups will ensure there is no split title this year. If it were USC/UGA or USC/OU or UGA/OU and one of those teams won big I think there would be a chance for a split title. Now no matter what, each BCS winner has no real chance to make any real impression.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:19 pm

bdunn13 wrote:I think the match ups were designed they way they are for two reasons.

1. The Rose Bowl folks are snobs and did not want an SEC team.

2. The crappy match ups will ensure there is no split title this year. If it were USC/UGA or USC/OU or UGA/OU and one of those teams won big I think there would be a chance for a split title. Now no matter what, each BCS winner has no real chance to make any real impression.

Yes and yes.

I think USC Oklahoma would be the best match up but oh well the douchebags at the NCAA always get their way.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:25 pm

Maybe Rose Bowl didn't think SEC schools would travel out to Pasadena in big numbers.

Also, it's not only the NCAA against the playoffs.

It's every party who makes a lot of money from the current system. That would be big schools, big conferences, bowls, TV networks, etc.

Maybe playoffs would make them more money, maybe not.

What economic incentive do they have to risk it?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:29 pm

wco81 wrote:Maybe Rose Bowl didn't think SEC schools would travel out to Pasadena in big numbers.

Also, it's not only the NCAA against the playoffs.

It's every party who makes a lot of money from the current system. That would be big schools, big conferences, bowls, TV networks, etc.

Maybe playoffs would make them more money, maybe not.

What economic incentive do they have to risk it?

We all all know its about the f***in money. What we want is thes pieces of s*** to stop telling us crap about missing class.

Bad enough that they are scum. They are lying holier than though scum.

Hey NCAA go play in traffic!

jondiehl · Post by **jondiehl** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:42 pm

What a farce. The BCS bowls pick the 8th (KU) and 13th (ILL) ranked teams for at large picks over #6 Mizzou? And both teams got beat by Mizzou on neutral fields.

The computers have Mizzou at 4th still, and they're stuck in the friggin Cotton bowl.

I'm boycotting all of these exhibition bowl games and won't watch any of them, this is just pure stupidity.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:44 pm

I feel bad for Mizzou fans. What a great season, and the Tigers are playing in what probably will be a cold, rainy Dallas in the Cotton Bowl -- with one f*cking loss.

Nuts and bolts, Missouri got screwed.

Doesn't the BCS have sliders?

Take care,
PK

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 pm

XXXIV wrote: Ill make the first prediction OSU 20 LSU 13. Afterall I am from the Big 10

I'll throw in my prediction... LSU 35 OSU 10.

OSU's schedule this year was a joke compared to the tigers. They beat a crappy Michigan team and haven't played anybody ranked higher than Wisconsin (currently #18) except for Illinois who beat them 28-21.

LSU on the other hand killed VT (48-7), beat Florida, Kentucky, Auburn, Alabama, and Tennessee and scored no less than 28 points in every game expect their final matchup versus the vols.

Tressel is a great coach but his team is going to be shown up big time versus the SEC champs.

snaz16 · Post by **snaz16** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:20 am

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/conte ... CID=745950

There ya go bdunn...the Sugar Bowl against Hawaii. I'm actually looking forward to that game.
Kansas in the Orange Bowl....I might be one of the few guys old enough to remember thier Qb...if I'm not mistaken,wasn't it Bobby Douglass,who went on to Qb the Bears. He was the 60's version of Tim Tebow.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:47 am

Maybe it's just me, but with the possible exception of OU and WVU, everyone of these games looks like a dog.

First time I can ever remember the Trojans playing in the Rose Bowl and not looking forward to the game. Hell, I think it's about the first time I can remember not looking forward to the Rose Bowl period.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:47 am

macsomjrr wrote:
XXXIV wrote: Ill make the first prediction OSU 20 LSU 13. Afterall I am from the Big 10
LSU on the other hand killed VT (48-7), beat Florida, Kentucky, Auburn, Alabama, and Tennessee and scored no less than 28 points in every game expect their final matchup versus the vols.

Tennessee removed from that list, thats Georgia's resume.... and of course LSU lost to Kentucky while Georgia held them to their lowest point total of the year. So you swap losing to an unranked team by 6 with losing to previous 14th ranked team by 21.

One thing OSU and LSU have in common is they are both 1-1 in their last 2 games. I would assume OSU is going to be the dog in this game.. Has this ever happened? Two weeks in a row when the lines come out the newly crowned number one will not even be favored.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BHkADG4UQjE

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:57 am

The BCS is the toothless hillbilly and Missouri was Ned Beatty this year. What a joke!

PK is correct. The bowls games mean nothing. Can anyone really say the the winner of the BCS Championship game is really the true National Champion?

I am a fan of the Big Ten and I hope Ohio St and Illinois do well. But the truth is The Buckeyes should be playing in the Rose Bowl and Illinois should be playing in a non BCS Bowl.

No team wth Youngstown St, Akron and Kent St on it's schedule should be able to back in over teams that are playing and winning Conference Championship games.

The Big Ten and Pac Ten don't play Conference Championships but yet reep the rewards of the BCS. How can you really call yourself a Conference Champion when you don't play all the teams in your conference?

It's sad something so great like D1 college football crowns it's champion in such a flawed manner. It makes you wonder if the idiots that came up with the current system even went to college.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:29 am

JackDog wrote:The Big Ten and Pac Ten don't play Conference Championships but yet reep the rewards of the BCS. How can you really call yourself a Conference Champion when you don't play all the teams in your conference?

The PAC 10 teams already play all the teams in conference. Is a championship game really going to prove any more than it does now if you play every other team. It seems to me that adding a PAC 10 title game would only be for money.

If the Big Ten expands to 12 teams then it would make sense to add a championship game. The Big 12, ACC, and SEC have 12 teams so it's a good fit. If they don't expand but add a title game they'd have to move the Ohio State/Michigan game to mid or early season because that would be the championship game most years. It wouldn't make sense to make them play 2 weeks in row.

The Big Ten should at least play a 9 game conference schedule since all the Big Ten teams did was add games against teams like Temple, Central Michigan, and Youngstown State as the 12th game.

I think it's pretty obvious to me that Ohio State is the Big Ten champion. They played the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th teams in the standings. You can debate whether they deserve to be in the championship game, but I'm not buying that they didn't deserve to win the Big 10.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:49 am

Leebo33 wrote:
JackDog wrote:The Big Ten and Pac Ten don't play Conference Championships but yet reep the rewards of the BCS. How can you really call yourself a Conference Champion when you don't play all the teams in your conference?
The PAC 10 teams already play all the teams in conference. Is a championship game really going to prove any more than it does now if you play every other team. It seems to me that adding a PAC 10 title game would only be for money.

If the Big Ten expands to 12 teams then it would make sense to add a championship game. The Big 12, ACC, and SEC have 12 teams so it's a good fit. If they don't expand but add a title game they'd have to move the Ohio State/Michigan game to mid or early season because that would be the championship game most years. It wouldn't make sense to make them play 2 weeks in row.

The Big Ten should at least play a 9 game conference schedule since all the Big Ten teams did was add games against teams like Temple, Central Michigan, and Youngstown State as the 12th game.

I think it's pretty obvious to me that Ohio State is the Big Ten champion. They played the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th teams in the standings. You can debate whether they deserve to be in the championship game, but I'm not buying that they didn't deserve to win the Big 10.

That shows you how much I known about the Pac 10.

I wasn't trying to say the Buckeyes aren't the Big 10 Champions. They are without a doubt this year.

What I was saying is exactly what you pointed out. If the Big Ten isn't going to have a conference Championship Game then it needs to play a 9 game conference schedule. But that still won't solve the Co-Champ problem. Only a Championship game will do that.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:16 am

Why should the other conferences have to have a championship game just because Roy Kramer woke up in 1991 and went, "Hey, I know how we can make even more money"!

jondiehl · Post by **jondiehl** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:34 am

fsquid wrote:Why should the other conferences have to have a championship game just because Roy Kramer woke up in 1991 and went, "Hey, I know how we can make even more money"!

One reason, and one reason alone:

To create a more level playing field.

What if the AL East decided that they weren't going to participate in the wildcard/divisional playoff format and would just send their best team to play with whatever AL team battled it out through the playoffs before deciding who would play in the World Series? Would that be fair? Of course not.

Not forcing every conference that labels itself as a "BCS" conference to have a conference (+1) championship game means that some conferences get to sit on their ass and climb the rankings, or in other years get screwed by teams playing that extra game that will leapfrog them.

They all need to play a similar system.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am

I just checked the entire bowl schedule, and there's only two games I'll watch:

Capital One: Michigan vs. Florida. I'll watch only because it's Mike Hart's last college game and because Tim Tebow provides a ton of entertainment.

Sugar: Hawaii vs. Georgia. I'm very curious to see how Colt Brennan will do against an SEC powerhouse and one of the best teams in the nation. Hawaii could be this bowl season's Boise State, an exciting, offensive-oriented underdog.

I would have watched the Brut Sun -- South Florida vs. Oregon -- if Dixon was healthy, because it would have been nice to compare Grothe and Dixon, even if Dixon probably would have prevailed with relative ease.

Otherwise, none of the games interest me in the least, as they're all glorified scrimmages, including the BCS national title game. Reruns of "Battle of the Network Stars" would be more entertaining than the rest of this rubbish disguised as meaningful football games.

Just a flaming, putrid pile of horsesh*t.

Take care,
PK

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:10 am

jondiehl wrote:
fsquid wrote:Why should the other conferences have to have a championship game just because Roy Kramer woke up in 1991 and went, "Hey, I know how we can make even more money"!
One reason, and one reason alone:

To create a more level playing field.

What if the AL East decided that they weren't going to participate in the wildcard/divisional playoff format and would just send their best team to play with whatever AL team battled it out through the playoffs before deciding who would play in the World Series? Would that be fair? Of course not.

Not forcing every conference that labels itself as a "BCS" conference to have a conference (+1) championship game means that some conferences get to sit on their ass and climb the rankings, or in other years get screwed by teams playing that extra game that will leapfrog them.

They all need to play a similar system.

Ohio State didn't sit on their ass. They played 12 games straight without a bye. That's why they finished their regular season a week before everyone else. They played the same number of regular season games as everyone else. You can't penalize them because they don't have a championship game for their conference which was designed for nothing more than to make money.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:16 am

That is a good analogy and a good point. But I am not sure I could sit through a Big 10 championship game anymore than I can sit through an ACC championship game. The PAC 10 would be entertaining - but it would be a rematch, so it would most likely seem pointless. But it would even things out so that you would not have to compare a team that played 12 games with a team that played 13 games.

But after the championships are decided and the NC game has participants, it is all about money. If a team loses their conference championship, they can fall pretty far if they don't have good fan support. The Champs Sports is ACC's fourth most prestigious bowl after the Orange Bowl, the Chick-fil-A Bowl and the Gator Bowl and yet the ACC runner up (Boston College) is headed to that game. Why? Their fans don't travel. If you don't have big fan support you had better win your conference or the bowls will ignore you if they can.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:51 pm

I don't think you should have a championship game unless you have at least 12 teams in your conference. If agree in theory with the idea of a level playing field, but if these megaconferences want to get the economic advantage of being this large, they have to deal with the consequences of playing an extra, usually tough championship game.

The Mizzou snub is beyond stupid. The idea that they were #1 last week, are still #6 in the final BCS rankings, and beat two other teams going to BCS bowls, yet not playing in a BCS bowl, shows how utterly f***ed this idiotic system is. Now that Hugo Chavez is out of a job in Venezuela, I think he would be the perfect person to lead the NCAA backwards into the 20th century.

Luckily there's a real football league to watch in January.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:58 pm

Brando70 wrote:The Mizzou snub is beyond stupid. The idea that they were #1 last week, are still #6 in the final BCS rankings, and beat two other teams going to BCS bowls, yet not playing in a BCS bowl, shows how utterly f***ed this idiotic system is. Now that Hugo Chavez is out of a job in Venezuela, I think he would be the perfect person to lead the NCAA backwards into the 20th century.

lexbur · Post by **lexbur** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:33 pm

I thought the Big Ten did have a championship game at the end of the regular season every year. Isn't that what the Ohio State/Michigan game is?

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:12 pm

Breakdown of how each coach voted.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics ... /flash.htm

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:14 pm

Not complaining one bit about KU being in the Orange Bowl.

I think it's hilarious actually. Mizzou fans were riding high this past week after beating KU, and now they're screwed playing in a non BCS game. Can't get any sweeter. I can taste the orange now.

And look at it this way. Mizzou was number one, but they lost to at the time the number 9 team in the country. That's an upset even though OU was favored. Ok, so KU did lose to Mizzou. However, KU was #2 at the time and MU was #4. That's hardly deserving of dropping too far in the rankings.

And lastly, it's all about the Benjamins. Frankly, KU fans have traditionally traveled a lot better than Mizzou fans. I would bet anyone KU would have more fans at the Orange Bowl than Mizzou would.

In the end, it's bullsh**t that only two teams from each conference are allowed in the BCS format. Mizzou is deserving, but in the end they have two losses. I'm just surprised they now play a 24th ranked team. Whatever happened to 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4, 5 plays 6, and so forth? If you're not going to have a playoff, then at least go about it more fairly and make the games more meaningful and intriguing.

Ah well....my smile hasn't left my face since late Saturday evening.

HipE · Post by **HipE** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:16 pm

The Big Ten actually can't play a 9 game conference schedule since they have an uneven number of teams in the conference. If they added a 9th conference game, there would be one team that only plays 8 conference games. Pretty much the only thing they can do to even things out with the other conferences is to add a 12th team and play a conference championship game, which I believe they want to do.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:27 pm

bdunn13 wrote:Breakdown of how each coach voted.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics ... /flash.htm

Greg Robinson of Syracuse doesn't have a vote? One of the finest coaches in college football history, the bastard love child of Pop Warner and Amos Alonzo Stagg, isn't part of the process?

OUTRAGE!

Take care,
PK