College Football And The BCS Fall Out

UAXDXer · Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:00 am

With UT's win over Ohio State last night College Football will be left with 2 one loss teams and 1 Un-defeated team. As The Great Messiah - Obama said "If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system."

The way Utah dominated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and being that they are the only Un-defeated team in College football how can anyone argue that they should not at least have a share of the National Championship? And if OU beats UF then this is really going to get ugly considering UT beat OU back in October.

So What say you?

mbmbos · Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:56 pm

I say Southern Cal ought to have a chance to fight for the National Championship. Let's pit USC against the winner of the Oklahoma/Florida battle.

My hunch is that although the Big 12 teams have a lot of flash and panache, they're not quite at the lofty level many sports writers would have us believe. And the PAC 10 did very well in their bowl games, which bolsters my theory that USC might be the best team out there.

Utah? Don't know. They're for real - they're a very solid team. Don't know if they're number one though. Also, there's Penn State. I suspect Penn State could handily beat Texas or Oklahoma.

There are way too many unanswered questions this season.

seb146 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:22 pm

When and why did the slew of New Years Day bowl game stop? This also brings up the point that Boise State from a few years ago, should have been in a better bowl game and probably should anyway. I don't understand why different bowls have different alliances. Why can't the number 3 team play the number 4 team in, say, the Rose Bowl, numbers 5 and 6 play in Orange Bowl, 7 and 8 play in Fiesta, and 9 and 10 play in Cotton or some such thing instead of Pac-10 only has a few choices, SEC only has a few choices, WAC only has a few choices all regardless of their standing at the end of the season. Sorry for the randomness of the post!

NIKV69 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Quoting UAXDXer (Thread starter):
The Great Messiah - Obama said "If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system."

Probably the best thing he has ever said. The college football system has been flawed and a major mess that needs fixing bad.

LAXintl · Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:37 pm

Yes agree fully. The way things are rigged at the moment one neither really knows who the best team in the nation is, plus the way the divisions are segregated a lesser team can skate by to the top if its division peers are mediocre compared to a much more challenging division composed of stronger teams but have worse win records as they fiercely beat each other up.

mbmbos · Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:26 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
...a lesser team can skate by...

True, but keep in mind that teams in lesser conferences have a hard time scheduling games with teams in the elite conferences. Elite conferences have created cabals that severely limit games with the lesser conferences. Elite teams play teams in other elite conferences plus a few local pushovers to pad their records.

Can you imagine how hard it is for Utah, fromt he Mountain West Conference, to schedule a game with an SEC opponent or a PAC 10 opponent? Utah has a very ambitious athletic program and I am sure they have tried.

F9Widebody · Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:46 pm

Quoting UAXDXer (Thread starter):
And if OU beats UF then this is really going to get ugly considering UT beat OU back in October.

True, but whichever (of the three) Big-12 teams that were chosen would be in the same situation. TT beat Texas and OU beat TT. So someone would be griping no matter who went. In this case its mack brown, whiner extraordinaire.

Quoting UAXDXer (Thread starter):
With UT's win over Ohio State last night College Football will be left with 2 one loss teams

I don't think UT's claim to deserve a spot in the NC game is as legitimate after last nights performance. They struggled mightily against OSU, and indeed almost lost.

RGElectra80 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:13 pm

Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 6):
I don't think UT's claim to deserve a spot in the NC game is as legitimate after last nights performance. They struggled mightily against OSU, and indeed almost lost.

For UT to have a real claim at an AP title at this point, they would have needed to make OSU their b***h and hope that OU loses to UF, also by a landslide. Since the former didn't happen, it doesn't matter if the latter does.

par13del · Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:55 pm

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 5):
Can you imagine how hard it is for Utah, fromt he Mountain West Conference, to schedule a game with an SEC opponent or a PAC 10 opponent? Utah has a very ambitious athletic program and I am sure they have tried.

Remember when the University of Miami was independent and started building a quality program, suddenly no one wanted to play them including the in state rival the Gators, so they had to join a conference to survive.
The only independent school who did not and does not have to join a conference is the University of Notre Dame, and that is simply because their television network happens to be a national one - Notre Dame (N) Broadcasting (B) Corporation.

Cheers

Alias1024 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:15 pm

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 5):
Can you imagine how hard it is for Utah, fromt he Mountain West Conference, to schedule a game with an SEC opponent or a PAC 10 opponent? Utah has a very ambitious athletic program and I am sure they have tried.

It will be even tougher with the ass kicking the Mountain West gave the Pac-10 this year. Final tally MWC 6 : 2 Pac-10. With Utah's win the Mountain West was also 2 up on the SEC, after Wyoming got that shocking win on the road against Tennessee.

Of course the Big XII should try to schedule as many Mountain West opponents as possible, as the MWC seems to be cursed against that conference.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 1):
I suspect Penn State could handily beat Texas or Oklahoma.

I doubt it. USC showed Penn State for the oversized, too slow team that they are. Texas and Oklahoma both have the speed to torch Penn State like USC did. I agree that USC deserved a chance though. That's a very, very good team.

This is why we need a playoff. I can strongly argue for Utah, Florida, USC, Oklahoma and Texas all deserving a chance.

I'd also kinda like to see TCU get a shot against Florida. They did a great job shutting down the spread that Utah runs, and would have won if their kicker hadn't choked. I'd like to see them play against Florida's spread and see if they have the same success.

WellHung · Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:16 pm

While a playoff is obviously the best system, this is not the first and won't be the last time an undefeated team has not been the national champ. Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country. Utah may have a claim to number 3.

With the d-bags running the NCAA, we are lucky to have 1 vs. 2. Remember the bowl system before the BCS? A total disaster. At least the BCS is only a partial disaster.

Quoting UAXDXer (Thread starter):
if OU beats UF then this is really going to get ugly considering UT beat OU back in October.

No it won't. If OU beats Florida, they are the champs. No controversy except from homer fans, and their opinions don't count anyway.

[Edited 2009-01-06 12:17:57]

slider · Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:44 pm

Quoting UAXDXer (Thread starter):
The way Utah dominated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and being that they are the only Un-defeated team in College football how can anyone argue that they should not at least have a share of the National Championship?

Well, already been cited, but the bias toward the so-called “power” conferences is one reason. Scheduling is another, but that knife cuts both ways. Utah beat Michigan in the opener, and we all know how lousy Michigan was this season, but that was a big win given the bias of preseason polls (which are part of the problem—another thing no one seems to want to talk about! There shouldn’t be ANY poll until AFTER the first full week).

Quoting UAXDXer (Thread starter):
And if OU beats UF then this is really going to get ugly considering UT beat OU back in October.

It’s ugly no matter what, because UT has a legitimate claim to want to have played Florida anyhow. The massive Big 12 sent a weaker northern team like Mizzou when the best teams in the conference—and country—were all dogpiled in the south.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 1):
I say Southern Cal ought to have a chance to fight for the National Championship.

Nonsense!! They lost to an unranked Oregon St. team.

Running up the score against hapless Wazoo and WSU was bush league to pad their BCS computer ranking after ditching it to a bad OSU team. However, they did play Ohio St in non-conf, which helps them.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 5):
Elite teams play teams in other elite conferences plus a few local pushovers to pad their records.

Again, my point about double-edged non-conf scheduling stands here. If Texas had not played patsies, they might have gotten they nod. Florida Atlantic? Rice? (that’s an old school rivalry tradition game though, admittedly). At least Oklahoma had Cincinnati in there which buoyed things up for them.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10):
No it won't. If OU beats Florida, they are the champs. No controversy except from homer fans, and their opinions don't count anyway.

45-35.

Always controversy when you’re talking about the UT-OU rivalry.

UAXDXer · Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:20 pm

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 5):
Can you imagine how hard it is for Utah, fromt he Mountain West Conference, to schedule a game with an SEC opponent or a PAC 10 opponent? Utah has a very ambitious athletic program and I am sure they have tried.

The Mountain West went 6 - 1 against the PAC 10 this year. At least for this year the Mountain West was every bit as good or better than the prestigious PAC 10.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10):
No it won't. If OU beats Florida, they are the champs. No controversy except from homer fans, and their opinions don't count anyway.

No... there will most definitely be controversy since Utah is Un-Defeated and UT BEAT OU.

One other point.... Had Notre Dame played the exact schedule that Utah did this year and won out as Utah did... Notre Dame would be playing for National Championship.

Evan767 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:33 pm

Texas doesn't deserve sh*t after last night's performance. Ohio State came extremely close to beating them, and Texas barely squeaked by on fourth down. Texas was heavily favored in this matchup but Ohio State took charge for more than half of the game. Texas should just walk away and be content with their Fiesta Bowl win.

WellHung · Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 12):
No... there will most definitely be controversy since Utah is Un-Defeated and UT BEAT OU.

No there won't. The winner of the BCS National Championship Game is the champion. It's as simple as that. You may disagree with the system, as do I, but it is pretty clear-cut in regards to naming a champion.

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 12):
Had Notre Dame played the exact schedule that Utah did this year and won out as Utah did... Notre Dame would be playing for National Championship.

Source?

LTU932 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:04 pm

Quoting WellHung (Reply 14):
The winner of the BCS National Championship Game is the champion.

Factually, that is correct, but that doesn't mean that there will be no controversy overall. Remember 2003, when USC was named national champion by the AP (which was then still part of the BCS), even though LSU was the national champion because of their victory in the Sugar Bowl?

FlyDeltaJets87 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:23 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
Nonsense!! They lost to an unranked Oregon St. team.

Running up the score against hapless Wazoo and WSU was bush league to pad their BCS computer ranking after ditching it to a bad OSU team. However, they did play Ohio St in non-conf, which helps them.

I thought running up the score didnt help in the computer ranking, as margin of victory is not part of the BCS computer system.

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
45-35.

Always controversy when you’re talking about the UT-OU rivalry.

The flaw in the BCS is that it's not if you lose, but when. Losing later in the season hurts far more than losing early in the season. A bunch of teams losing late in the season a year ago is how OSU ended up in the National Championship against LSU. If Texas had lost fairly early in the season to Texas Tech, and beat Oklahoma in say the last week of the season, and had the same record overall, no doubt in my mind that it would be a UF-UT National Title game.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 2):
I don't understand why different bowls have different alliances.

I do. It's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Yes agree fully. The way things are rigged at the moment one neither really knows who the best team in the nation is, plus the way the divisions are segregated a lesser team can skate by to the top if its division peers are mediocre compared to a much more challenging division composed of stronger teams but have worse win records as they fiercely beat each other up.

That's the SEC. The SEC has so many good times that they knock each other off.

RGElectra80 · Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:26 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 16):
The SEC has so many good times that they knock each other off.

Judging by how their coeds look, I bet there indeed is a lot of good times in the SEC... Wink

KAUSpilot · Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:28 pm

Quoting RGElectra80 (Reply 7):
For UT to have a real claim at an AP title at this point, they would have needed to make OSU their b***h and hope that OU loses to UF, also by a landslide. Since the former didn't happen, it doesn't matter if the latter does.

Actually, UT's best shot at a split would be an OU win....you'd have two teams with almost identical records and one had beaten the other head to head on a neutral site....

With that said, I think most UT fans would rather see OU go down in flames than share a title with them.

I'd take Texas on a neutral field against Utah, 'SC, or Florida much less Penn State. McCoy is money and the defense is good. Texas came out flat in the first half against OSU and still won the game.

Lumberton · Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:29 pm

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10):
With the d-bags running the NCAA, we are lucky to have 1 vs. 2. Remember the bowl system before the BCS? A total disaster. At least the BCS is only a partial disaster.

And the "champion" was determined by reporters & pollsters. You're right it was a disaster. In fact, looking back is about the only way to make the current system look good. Wink

I watched Lou Holtz on ESPN a few weeks back explaining why the current BCS system will be so hard to tank. It was in response to a question from (basketball coach) Bobby Knight on why Division I (or FBS) teams don't have a playoff like the NCAA basketball tournament. Holtz explained that with the bowl system, the money goes to the schools, whereas with the basketball tournament, most of the money goes to the NCAA to dole out. Viewed in this light, it would be extremely hard to change the current system. It would probably require an act of Congress. Many of the coaches that advocate a playoff would probably be over ruled by their athletic directors!

corocks · Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:30 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 18):
Actually, UT's best shot at a split would be an OU win....you'd have two teams with almost identical records and one had beaten the other head to head on a neutral site....

They have no shot at a split title. Their lackluster performance against OSU has sealed that deal. I think if Wells had not gotten hurt, OSU wins that game. Texas had no answer for him.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 16):
I thought running up the score didnt help in the computer ranking, as margin of victory is not part of the BCS computer system.

I think that is the way it was originally designed, but now the "people polls" make up 2/3 of the total, so I think margin of victory counts these days.

The only way to solve this is of course a playoff. Personally, I say take the top 8 teams in the BCS rankings. That way, anyone with a legitimate chance of winning the title most likely gets in. I hate the idea of ensuring that all conference champions get in. It is too often that someone like the SEC or Big 12 is going to have multiple teams in the top 10 and I don't think one of them should lose out so that the winner of conference USA goes.

UAXDXer · Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:29 am

Quoting COrocks (Reply 20):
I hate the idea of ensuring that all conference champions get in. It is too often that someone like the SEC or Big 12 is going to have multiple teams in the top 10 and I don't think one of them should lose out so that the winner of conference USA goes.

Ok.... if not Conference USA then what about the Mountain West or WAC? Both Non-BCS conferences who have beat BCS Conference teams in BCS bowl games.

What about the Big East Champion getting an automatic bid to BCS game? When is the last time the Big East had a "Real" contender? Cincinnati? Come on...... Seriously? And if it were not for USC the PAC 10, they too would be just as big of a joke... which seriously questions the credibility of how good USC really is. I mean the PAC 10 is 1-6 against the MWC. Is the PAC 10 that bad or is the MWC that good?

tz757300 · Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:44 am

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 21):
What about the Big East Champion getting an automatic bid to BCS game?

Big East football may be not as competitive to say, the SEC, but we are here.

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 21):
When is the last time the Big East had a "Real" contender?

Did you see us (WVU) defeat UNC this year (Non-BCS bowl, I know)? Blowout the Sooners last year in the '08 Fiesta? If that doesnt count, what about us in the Sugar Bowl in '06 against Georgia? '07 Gator against Georgia Tech? And keep going back with WVU's history. If we don't seem as a contender, then I don't know what to think.

[Edited 2009-01-06 21:48:37]

UAXDXer · Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:58 am

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 22):
Did you see us (WVU) defeat UNC this year (Non-BCS bowl, I know)? Blowout the Sooners last year in the '08 Fiesta? If that doesnt count, what about us in the Sugar Bowl in '06 against Georgia? '07 Gator against Georgia Tech? And keep going back with WVU's history. If we don't seem as a contender, then I don't know what to think.

Ok... So the Big East has WVU. But beating OU in a Bowl Game is nothing new. Just ask LSU, USC, Boise State, and soon to be UF. My point is that just because you win your conference championship game in a mediocre conference for that year, shouldn't mean you get an automatic bid to a BCS game. The BCS could be shooting themselves in the foot by keeping out better programs.

MD-90 · Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:11 am

If Florida wins then this speculation is all for naught--even in this down year for the SEC.

tz757300 · Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:14 am

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 23):
My point is that just because you win your conference championship game in a mediocre conference for that year, shouldn't mean you get an automatic bid to a BCS game.

Personally, the way I see it. Teams compete in conferences, teams compete against teams, and one gets selected as the champ of the conference. Now I do think that the winner from the conference should be put against all other conferences in a playoff and a national champ be bestowed. I see your point that there are better teams out there, but if they were the best, they'd win the conference over other teams. The national champ would be selected in a playoff between other conference champs. All other BCS teams ranked would then play in their bowls. It's like a mix of both worlds. That's how I feel it would be best.

allstarflyer · Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:28 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 2):
I don't understand why different bowls have different alliances. Why can't the number 3 team play the number 4 team in, say, the Rose Bowl, numbers 5 and 6 play in Orange Bowl, 7 and 8 play in Fiesta, and 9 and 10 play in Cotton or some such thing

I agree - it may have been JT the brick who got fed up the other night with it and brought it back fresh to my mind. There's 4 big ones - Orange, Rose, Fiesta and Sugar. There's also a few notable ones - Gator, Cotton, Liberty and Outback. The top 8 could play in those "notable" ones 2 weeks before New Years. The winners could play in two of the big bowls and the losers in the other two big bowls (rotating every year which bowls get the winners). The winners in the big bowls could play in a national title game a week or so later. Don't think it should be so difficult. And there's a strong 8 out there that could make it fun to watch - OU, UT, UF, USC, OSU, PSU, Utah and Alabama (who was otherwise great before their last two games).

Quoting WellHung (Reply 14):
Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 12):
Had Notre Dame played the exact schedule that Utah did this year and won out as Utah did... Notre Dame would be playing for National Championship.

Source?

$$$$, ND Alumni and NBC.

corocks · Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:03 pm

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 25):
Personally, the way I see it. Teams compete in conferences, teams compete against teams, and one gets selected as the champ of the conference. Now I do think that the winner from the conference should be put against all other conferences in a playoff and a national champ be bestowed. I see your point that there are better teams out there, but if they were the best, they'd win the conference over other teams.

I disagree because it is entirely possible that the 2 best teams in the country can be in the same conference - why should the 2nd best team in the country be left out over a conference champion from a mediocre conference?

RGElectra80 · Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:06 pm

Quoting COrocks (Reply 27):
I disagree because it is entirely possible that the 2 best teams in the country can be in the same conference - why should the 2nd best team in the country be left out over a conference champion from a mediocre conference?

One could argue that if they were that good they'd win their conference.

What could work is if we have a 16-team playoff system where all the conference champions plus 5 of the other best (to include those 2nd place finishers from stronger conferences) after the 8th or 9th week, depending if we'd do away with conference championships or if the regular season conference champion would suffice, of the season. Under this format, you'd have a total of 15 games in these playoffs and those major bowls can still keep their name and sponsorship.

Those top 5 needed to round off the playoffs would be decided based on their average AP/Coaches' poll ranking.

You'd keep those top 8 bowls mentioned in Allstarflyer's post in the play-offs perpetually plus a championship game, much like we have now. The other 6 games would rotate between other "lower tier" bowls each season. The remaining bowls could still exist under this format as well, inviting those that didn't make it to the top 16, kinda like the NIT in college hoops except in this dream world of mine they wouldn't be in a tournament format like the NIT.

So you'd still keep polls, rankings and bowls and all the hoopla associated with the sport except you'd line them up in a more organized manner to make the championship picture a bit clearer.

WellHung · Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:22 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):
Factually, that is correct, but that doesn't mean that there will be no controversy overall. Remember 2003, when USC was named national champion by the AP (which was then still part of the BCS), even though LSU was the national champion because of their victory in the Sugar Bowl?

The AP is independent of the BCS. Even when the AP poll was used in calculating rankings and determining who played in the championship, the title game still determined the national champion. The BCS names the national champion, all other organizations are free to conduct their own polls however they like, though it does not change anything or create controversy over who is the actual champion. The AP is a big name, but in reality, it has the same impact as an airliners.net poll of the #1 team, especially now that the AP poll is not included in BCS calculations.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 26):
$$$$, ND Alumni and NBC.

That doesn't cut it. You will need to provide a link to a study or data of some sort.

slider · Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:34 pm

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 12):
Notre Dame would be playing for National Championship

LMAO! Sorry, Notre Dame sucks ass. Let’s stop the delusional golden domer pipe dream and face reality. Notre Dame is a relic, relegated to playing Army and sucking off the NBC TV phat cash. Not much more than that lately.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 16):
The flaw in the BCS is that it's not if you lose, but when. Losing later in the season hurts far more than losing early in the season.

This is a very good point and something that also pisses me off…because the BCS is composed of polls, and polls are human, it unduly weights late losses and drops are more precipitous in polls which impact BCS ranking. USC’s loss to Oregon St solidifies my point here—they lose early, but other teams then lose, steal the thunder and fall in the polls. USC does nothing but then win out, and rake over some horrible Pac 10 teams, and ascends. But there’s no “make up” time at the tail end of a season if a very good team barely loses to say a competitive conference rival.

And the fact some conferences have championships and others don’t also play a heavy role…

LTU932 · Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:21 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 30):
the BCS is composed of polls, and polls are human, it unduly weights late losses and drops are more precipitous in polls which impact BCS ranking.

Not entirely human though. The BCS is also based on computer ratings.

slider · Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:25 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 31):

Not entirely human though. The BCS is also based on computer ratings.

Oh, I know...I was merely focusing on the human, ergo flawed and biased, part.

Plus, there is no consideration given for neutral field.

FlyDeltaJets87 · Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:02 pm

Quoting COrocks (Reply 27):
I disagree because it is entirely possible that the 2 best teams in the country can be in the same conference - why should the 2nd best team in the country be left out over a conference champion from a mediocre conference?

That's the way it goes sometimes. There have been years where you could easily make the case that the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox were the two best teams in the MLB that season, but in October, only one could go on to the World Series.

Quoting COrocks (Reply 20):
I think that is the way it was originally designed, but now the "people polls" make up 2/3 of the total, so I think margin of victory counts these days.

I think the computer system should be written so that margin of victory is worked in, but there should be a maximum margin of victory (Say, 30+ points, ie, once you're ahead by 30 points, winning by 30 is the same as winning by 50 points). It's stupid, because for example, Ohio State beating Kent State by 35 points is not the same as beating Michigan by 35 pointsm and vise versa - beating Michigan by only 10 points is not the same as beating Kent State by only 10 points.

Quoting Slider (Reply 30):
But there’s no “make up” time at the tail end of a season if a very good team barely loses to say a competitive conference rival.

Yeup, especially when those conference rival games are usually saved for the end of the season. Look at three seasons ago (2006), when Ohio State was #1 and Univ. of Michigan was #2 going into the OSU-UM game. Well, one team had to win and one team had to lose. The team that won was going to be #1 and the team that lost was going to fall in the rankings.

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 23):
My point is that just because you win your conference championship game in a mediocre conference for that year, shouldn't mean you get an automatic bid to a BCS game. The BCS could be shooting themselves in the foot by keeping out better programs.

But with how much money each bowl brings a conference, it will quickly become a case of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer", and you will quickly kill the "weaker" conferences. .

Quoting Slider (Reply 30):
And the fact some conferences have championships and others don’t also play a heavy role…

Tell us about it.

Signed,
Alabama

Revelation · Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:08 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Probably the best thing he has ever said. The college football system has been flawed and a major mess that needs fixing bad.

I wish that was his most pressing problem...

slider · Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:32 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 33):
Yeup, especially when those conference rival games are usually saved for the end of the season. Look at three seasons ago (2006), when Ohio State was #1 and Univ. of Michigan was #2 going into the OSU-UM game. Well, one team had to win and one team had to lose. The team that won was going to be #1 and the team that lost was going to fall in the rankings.

That is a textbook example—great point. Rivalry weekend is always later in the season. Non-conf games are typically earlier, so any major upsets by an unranked non-BCS eligible team of a football factory will happen early enough to make up from whereas late honest to goodness championship contending teams could drop a late one to a top team and be screwed. That’s messed up.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 33):
Tell us about it.

Signed,
Alabama

LOL! Good point. But after losing to Utah, the point is moot at least this year.

No love for the Utes….those guys can hang with anyone as far as I’m concerned. But people still gush over the University of Spoiled Children. It’s baffling.

allstarflyer · Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:09 pm

Quoting WellHung (Reply 29):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 26):
$$$$, ND Alumni and NBC.

That doesn't cut it. You will need to provide a link to a study or data of some sort.

It's more of an axiomatic sort of thing. eyebrow

IgneousRocks · Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:28 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 30):
Sorry, Notre Dame sucks ass. Let’s stop the delusional golden domer pipe dream and face reality. Notre Dame is a relic

The original comment made about Notre Dame was that - all thing being equal - had N.D. played the exact same schedule as Utah and finished with the exact same record, N.D. would be shown a huge amount poll favoritism and consideration that Utah doesn't benefit from or receive. Probably true, although Utah will finish very respectability in the top 5.

It's wishful thinking to suggest N.D. won''t again rise to the top. At some point Texas, OSU, USC (or whoever) will likely sink in the standings to be be very average teams. Its all cyclical.

KAUSpilot · Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:03 am

Quoting COrocks (Reply 20):
They have no shot at a split title. Their lackluster performance against OSU has sealed that deal. I think if Wells had not gotten hurt, OSU wins that game. Texas had no answer for him.

BS, it was a win against a top 10 team at a neutral sight. If OU wins they both finish with one loss and who beat who head to head again? DID THAT GAME in october NOT HAPPEN?

Granted, I don't expect a split AP title.

UTAH would have a claim, but guess what? They were supposed to play Texas this year as an out of conference game but Utah backed out (wimps). Had they not done that they could have a legitament claim, but since they did, tough cookies. More than likely it would have propelled texas into the BCS champ. game though when they beat utah and go the corresponding SOS computer bump instead of playing Florida Atlantic.

UAXDXer · Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:41 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 38):
They were supposed to play Texas this year as an out of conference game but Utah backed out (wimps).

I wonder how well Texas would do aginst Bama considering how Texas could barely handle Ohio St. I don't know the reasoning behing Utah pulling out of the Texas game... a source would be good to back up your statement.

In the mean time this is about the most logical read on the subject.

KAUSpilot · Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 39):

Here's a source:
http://blogs.sltrib.com/utes/2008/12/matchup-that-could-have-been.htm

Sure Utah might've beaten Texas, and they would probably have the AP championship in the bag if they had. Texas probably still woud've gone to the fiest bowl. As it stands I don't think you can reward them with the AP title for backing out of a game like that. Utah's decsion probbly also cost Texas a shot at the title, as they had to scramble to find an opponent and the only taker was Florida Atlantic. This cost them strength of schedule points in the BCS, where they lost out to OU by the slimmest of margins for a trip to the Big 12 chamionship game.

Now I don't mean to diminish Utah's accomplishment, but bama was obviously demoralized by their loss to UF after a perfect regular season. Bama had very little to gain with that sugar bowl win compared to where they were just prior to the end of the SEC championship game. Utah had everything to play for (undefeated, possible AP championship). I would like to see bama-utah played in a playoff environment where motivation is high, I think the outcome would be much different.

Alias1024 · Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:27 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 40):
Now I don't mean to diminish Utah's accomplishment, but bama was obviously demoralized by their loss to UF after a perfect regular season. Bama had very little to gain with that sugar bowl win compared to where they were just prior to the end of the SEC championship game. Utah had everything to play for (undefeated, possible AP championship). I would like to see bama-utah played in a playoff environment where motivation is high, I think the outcome would be much different.

This is the same crap that we heard after Oklahoma lost to Boise State. How many more times will we have to listen to this lack of motivation garbage as an excuse whenever a big program gets beat by a non-BCS conference interloper? The better team won. Deal with it.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 38):
They were supposed to play Texas this year as an out of conference game but Utah backed out (wimps).

Maybe you should take that up with Florida's head coach, since he's the one that wanted it off the schedule. It sure wasn't this year's Utes that decided to scrap the game.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 40):
Utah's decsion probbly also cost Texas a shot at the title, as they had to scramble to find an opponent and the only taker was Florida Atlantic.

If Urban Meyer was the one that wanted the game cancelled, then that would have been what 3 years ago? The Longhorns had 3 years to find a better opponent. Given the number of MWC, WAC, and CUSA schools that would love a chance to host a home game against Texas, I can only conclude that Texas's failure to play one of them was an issue of money. Instead they chose the cash of an extra home game against a cupcake team.

UAXDXer · Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:39 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 40):
Here's a source:

Note in the article that the game was cancelled by Urban Myer who has not been coach there since the '04 Fiesta Bowl. So they removed Texas (years ago) but still had Michigan on their schdule for this year. I don't think you would find one person who knows anything about college football who would have predicted Michigan to have the season that they had this year. As a matter of fact... Michigan was ranked 24th in the Preseason Coaches Poll.

Say what you want about Bama not having anything to play for! How about playing for not having the embarrassment of losing in SEC country to a slower, smaller, mid major school.

Anyway you slice it Utah is the only team in the Country left undefeated. They beat teams from The Big 10 (Michigan), Pac 10 (The Team that beat USC the week Prior), and SEC (The team that was ranked #1 most of the Season). This is WHY college football MUST go to some sort of playoff system!

KAUSpilot · Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:42 am

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 41):
This is the same crap that we heard after Oklahoma lost to Boise State. How many more times will we have to listen to this lack of motivation garbage as an excuse whenever a big program gets beat by a non-BCS conference interloper? The better team won. Deal with it.

I won't hold it against you for saying that Utah is a better team, they are. I would just like to see the game with more on the line for Alabama, Utah would probably still win, but i guess we'll never know, eh? I think the score would be closer though. Boise St. was better than OU too.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 41):
Maybe you should take that up with Florida's head coach, since he's the one that wanted it off the schedule. It sure wasn't this year's Utes that decided to scrap the game.

I can't take it up with anyone, I'm just a lowly fan like everyone else. It sure did work out well for coach meyer though, didn't it?

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 41):
If Urban Meyer was the one that wanted the game cancelled, then that would have been what 3 years ago? The Longhorns had 3 years to find a better opponent. Given the number of MWC, WAC, and CUSA schools that would love a chance to host a home game against Texas, I can only conclude that Texas's failure to play one of them was an issue of money. Instead they chose the cash of an extra home game against a cupcake team.

Not many teams of any strength-of-schedule consequence would be willing to risk their record....and chance of a BCS at large berth....for a home game against texas. The ones that wanted to (like TCU) were probably already booked up by the time Utah pulled out. I think for a non automatic-BCS conference team to have a shot out the title, they need to be willing to stack their OOC schedule with traditional, strong contenders from automatic conferencs.

Let's face it, Utah barely beat a horrible michigan team. They're only really respectble win was against Oregon state, and again, only by a 3 point margin AT HOME. Then they almost lose to New Mexico. Sure, a win is a win, but to me, that's not a national championship caliber resume. Be proud of the win against Bama, but let's be realistic.

With that said, the BCS is a sham and we need a 16 team playoff.

UAXDXer · Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:44 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 40):
Now I don't mean to diminish Utah's accomplishment, but bama was obviously demoralized by their loss to UF after a perfect regular season. Bama had very little to gain with that sugar bowl win compared to where they were just prior to the end of the SEC championship game. Utah had everything to play for (undefeated, possible AP championship). I would like to see bama-utah played in a playoff environment where motivation is high, I think the outcome would be much different.

Oh... and if this is the case than Nick Saban isn't worth the millions of $$$ and God like status that Alabama and it's fans have bestowed upon him. It is his job to get his team Motivated to play each and every team no matter the stakes. Weak, Weak Excuse!

Alias1024 · Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:01 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 43):
Let's face it, Utah barely beat a horrible michigan team. They're only really respectble win was against Oregon state, and again, only by a 3 point margin AT HOME. Then they almost lose to New Mexico.

TCU was an ugly win, but they made the plays in the end and TCU didn't. BYU was a good win and was a great showing for such a fierce rivalry game. Michigan looked like a great win at the time, but wow did that change. yuck

New Mexico has been a tough game for Utah for at least a decade. Rocky Long (UNM's recently departed head coach) has always had a good defenses, and in particular has always known how to shut down the Utes. I don't know what it was, but I don't remember Utah ever putting up big numbers in the 11 years Long was the head coach at New Mexico. I really thought it could be a trap game for the Utes this season, based on how close the past seasons have been.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 43):
I can't take it up with anyone, I'm just a lowly fan like everyone else. It sure did work out well for coach meyer though, didn't it?

Sure did. His crystal ball is pretty good. Smile

Longhornmaniac · Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:01 am

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 1):
I suspect Penn State could handily beat Texas or Oklahoma.

LOL. Hardly. They got absolutely exposed by an (overrated, IMO) USC team. They're slow as molasses. Either Texas or Oklahoma would absolutely torch that defense, and would prevent PSU from moving the ball well.

Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 6):
In this case its mack brown, whiner extraordinaire.

The fact that Mack Brown will openly stand up for his team against a ridiculously flawed system where Texas got royally screwed, and this is a bad thing, is beyond me...

Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 6):

I don't think UT's claim to deserve a spot in the NC game is as legitimate after last nights performance. They struggled mightily against OSU, and indeed almost lost.

No argument here from me. I was at the game, and OSU was actually a better team than I thought they were. Their defense did a number on our offense in the first half (admittedly, we weren't really doing ourselves any favors though, either). To have any claim at a split national title, which I really don't have much interest in, anyway, Texas needed to paste OSU, and see OU win a squeaker. Criterion number 1 didn't happen, so all bets are off.

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
Running up the score against hapless Wazoo and WSU was bush league to pad their BCS computer ranking after ditching it to a bad OSU team

to the bush league (see Bob Stoops for more evidence), but margin of victory doesn't influence the BCS computer rankings.

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 12):
One other point.... Had Notre Dame played the exact schedule that Utah did this year and won out as Utah did... Notre Dame would be playing for National Championship.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 13):
Texas doesn't deserve sh*t after last night's performance. Ohio State came extremely close to beating them, and Texas barely squeaked by on fourth down. Texas was heavily favored in this matchup but Ohio State took charge for more than half of the game. Texas should just walk away and be content with their Fiesta Bowl win.

As most Texas fans are.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 16):

The flaw in the BCS is that it's not if you lose, but when. Losing later in the season hurts far more than losing early in the season.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 18):
With that said, I think most UT fans would rather see OU go down in flames than share a title with them.

I know I would. F*** that classless program.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 18):
I'd take Texas on a neutral field against Utah, 'SC, or Florida much less Penn State. McCoy is money and the defense is good. Texas came out flat in the first half against OSU and still won the game.

Quoting COrocks (Reply 20):
Texas had no answer for him.

Hardly. He had like 3 good runs (similar to plays earlier this season where he scored), and got stuffed the rest of the times.

Quoting Slider (Reply 35):
No love for the Utes….those guys can hang with anyone as far as I’m concerned. But people still gush over the University of Spoiled Children. It’s baffling.

Especially after UT's performance Monday night, there is only one real team that has a legitimate claim to the split title, and that is Utah. As a Texas fan, I'm happy that we were able to beat a tough Ohio St. team, in whatever fashion that entailed, in a location where they're notoriously good. I'll take that, and get ready for next season. Utah, however, deserves something more.

Hook'em!

Cheers,
Cameron

UAXDXer · Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:44 am

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 46):
Especially after UT's performance Monday night, there is only one real team that has a legitimate claim to the split title, and that is Utah. As a Texas fan, I'm happy that we were able to beat a tough Ohio St. team, in whatever fashion that entailed, in a location where they're notoriously good. I'll take that, and get ready for next season. Utah, however, deserves something more.

Well said.... I doubt you would ever hear those words from an OU fan!

slider · Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 46):
They got absolutely exposed by an (overrated, IMO) USC team. They're slow as molasses.

Agreed—that’s one reason the Big Ten struggles with other power conferences; across the board, teams are slow with some exceptions. I was surprised to see the Buckeyes keep up with UT as much as they did—quite commendable and something that was overlooked by many.

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 47):

Well said.... I doubt you would ever hear those words from an OU fan!

That’s because Sooners can’t speak in complete sentences, haha…

corocks · Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:05 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 46):
Quoting COrocks (Reply 20):
Texas had no answer for him.

Hardly. He had like 3 good runs (similar to plays earlier this season where he scored), and got stuffed the rest of the times.

106 yards in the half is 106 yards......take off the orange colored glasses.....

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 46):

The fact that Mack Brown will openly stand up for his team against a ridiculously flawed system where Texas got royally screwed, and this is a bad thing, is beyond me...

Every Longhorn fans keeps saying they got screwed because of the "system". Time to be realistic - look at every single human poll - Texas is not 1st or 2nd in any of them. No one thinks Texas should be playing for a National Championship except the Alumni.

The system worked, the two best teams in the country are playing for the championship. But yes, we got to get a playoff! However, the controversy is a lot more fun to talk about this way! I think sports talk show hosts would be sad if we went to a playoff.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net