2010 College Football

[Chimpy]

The SEC is the best conference ever, don't you know that already?

[01101010]

Oh and my prior prediction is well on the way to fruition in that Auburn and LSU are knocking on the top 4 (despite LSU playing McNese State(!) in mid-October and only beating them by 22).

Well in all reality, this is an LSU team that plays to the competition. Besides, all their games are close due to having a high school level offense. 22 is actually a ton. But they'll get beat next week because their offense will not put up enough to compensate for what their defense will allow.

If they have any hope next week, they will put a dedicated defensive back on Cam all game. I kept wondering why the fuck Arkansas didn't have a person cover him and basically let him run roughshod all over the place, but then figured it was Arkansas so yeah... Seriously, if you let a single player put that kinda offensive output on you, your def coordinator should be fired. Make someone else on that offense beat you - my assumption is it will hurt less then letting Cam give you the finger as he runs by every play. LSU def is certainly better than ARK but not enough to hold them below the handfull of field goals they'll get.

[ghost]

The SEC is the best conference ever, don't you know that already?

Best conference ever is certainly debatable, but the SEC has owned the last decade and it isn't even close.  

And the SEC leads (by a significant margin) the number of national titles by active conference members with 18 as compared to the Big Tens' 13.  When you look at titles ever won by a team in a conference (i.e., Oklahoma won a bunch of titles while not in the Big 12) the Big 12 and SEC are tied at 18 each. 

[Abagadro]

Oklahoma at #1 in the BCS is a joke.

[ghost]

Oklahoma at #1 in the BCS is a joke.

Agreed.  I'm not sure how they outpaced Oregon. 

[EWSpider]

At this point I'm actually hoping the Gators lose 2-3 more games and fucking Addazio gets sacked (needs to at least be demoted back to O-Line coach only).  Then I can at least be content knowing something good came out of this season.

[Trippy]

Oklahoma at #1 in the BCS is a joke.

Agreed.  I'm not sure how they outpaced Oregon. 

The computers love Oklahoma. Actually the computers love everybody *but* Oregon who has an average comp ranking of #8. LSU is #2 in the computer rankings

[Paelos]

Let's see if I can decipher some of the inevitable bullshit we always have in some of the initial BCS polls:

1 - OU - This week was a clusterfuck. My only guess is that they leapfrog Oregon because they have two ranked wins while Oregon only has one.
2 - Oregon - I think they are here because of predictive scheduling. OU's closing out schedule is harder than Oregon's, but Oregon's is harder than Boise's.
3 - Boise St. - Outside looking in, as usual. Nobody wants them up there if we have any other option. PANSY PANSY schedule.
4 - Auburn - They are here because Cam Newton might be the best player in college football. If you haven't watched him, cue up some tape. It's amazing.
5 - TCU - Undefeated but they've played nobody ranked. I'm not counting Oregon State.
6 - LSU - Bitch if you must, but LSU is getting jobbed by being this low. They hold 3 ranked wins, but all those teams have gone AWOL in the rankings afterwards.
7 - Mich St. - Again, they are getting jobbed as well. They should be higher than Boise, TCU, and LSU due to their ranked wins.
8 - Alabama - Blatantly retarded that they are even in the top 10. I am not sure they are any better than Wisconsin or Ohio State.
9 - Utah - Love you Utah, but if you are hanging your hat on a ranked win against Pitt, we need to talk about a reality check. Let's talk after TCU.
10 - Ohio St. - WTF? Why is there an undefeated team behind them? What OHST win should impress me? Miami? Yeah that interception machine ain't doing it.

Here's my personal rankings:

1 - Oregon
2 - Auburn
3 - Oklahoma
4 - Michigan St.
5 - LSU
6 - Boise St.
7 - TCU
8 - Utah
9 - Missouri
10 - Wisconsin

[Trippy]

Was reading this article:

BCS is still rigged after all these years

which quoted this gem from http://www.bcsfootball.org/

It has been undeniably successful in achieving those goals. Thanks to the BCS, the top two teams have played each other 12 times in 12 years by BCS measurements

[Paelos]

As a hater of the BCS, I would be routing heavily for only Utah and Boise to be the lone teams standing undefeated at the end of the day, with a whole slew of one loss powerhouses. Then, watch the impending fallout as one of the undefeated teams gets trumped by a one-loss school, and we put the whole freaking system on trial.

I pray it's Utah that gets snubbed, because they will lawyer up the fastest and make this into a crusade.

[ghost]

As a hater of the BCS, I would be routing heavily for only Utah and Boise to be the lone teams standing undefeated at the end of the day, with a whole slew of one loss powerhouses. Then, watch the impending fallout as one of the undefeated teams gets trumped by a one-loss school, and we put the whole freaking system on trial.

I pray it's Utah that gets snubbed, because they will lawyer up the fastest and make this into a crusade.

If you really hate the BCS you should hope that Boise and TCU make the final game, shutting out all the big conference players.  That will get them to a playoff quite quickly, I would think.  And the BCS picture won't change unless the big conference schools go for it. 

[Paelos]

As a hater of the BCS, I would be routing heavily for only Utah and Boise to be the lone teams standing undefeated at the end of the day, with a whole slew of one loss powerhouses. Then, watch the impending fallout as one of the undefeated teams gets trumped by a one-loss school, and we put the whole freaking system on trial.

I pray it's Utah that gets snubbed, because they will lawyer up the fastest and make this into a crusade.

If you really hate the BCS you should hope that Boise and TCU make the final game, shutting out all the big conference players.  That will get them to a playoff quite quickly, I would think.  And the BCS picture won't change unless the big conference schools go for it. 

If you actually believe that would happen, you're nuts. They would never put two undefeated teams in there from non-BCS conferences.

[ghost]

If you actually believe that would happen, you're nuts. They would never put two undefeated teams in there from non-BCS conferences.

There reaches a point where they would have to.  For instance, if you threw Boise and TCU into the mix the year LSU won the whole shebang despite having two losses.......then you have a situation.

[Nebu]

The only thing the NCAA has to do is make money.  They will justify any action to ensure that this happens.  I don't see any reason that they have to put two non-BCS conference teams in a title game.  They will just use a strength of schedule argument to deny them access like they always have. 

[ghost]

I personally love the bowl system.  I don't want it to change.  I have no desire to see Boise State, Cincinnati or TCU play in a major bowl or even in the playoffs (if they were ever instituted). 

That being said, you are right, Nebu, in that you will not see change from the BCS system unless something happens to drain money from the NCAA.  The only other potential push for change is if the big conference players lose their "foothold" on the BCS, e.g. something happens like TCU and Boise State making it to the title game or even lots of "gate crashers" in the BCS bowl lineup.  The way the BCS formula is set up we certainly could see Boise State in the title game, given the right circumstances. 

[WayAbvPar]

Fuck bowls. I want to see the best teams play against each other and determine a championship.

[ghost]

Fuck bowls. I want to see the best teams play against each other and determine a championship.

They usually do.  In fact, I would bet that the best teams more often play each other in football than in the finals of the NCAA basketball tournament. 

[WayAbvPar]

I would completely and respectfully disagree with that.

[Azuredream]

In NCAAB, the two best teams on paper almost never make it to the finals. In NCAAF the two best teams on paper always make it to the final. I don't think best on paper equates to best in reality however.

[ghost]

I would completely and respectfully disagree with that.

Why would you think otherwise?  In basketball you regularly get 2 through 4 seeds winning the title.  A tournament is largely luck oriented. 

[Rasix]

You're assuming the first seed is always worthy of that spot.  DERP.

[ghost]

You're assuming the first seed is always worthy of that spot.  DERP.

That's a circular argument, Rasix.  It's easy to say that a number one seed wasn't worthy of their seed if they lose, even if they would win 90% of the time. 


Really the only legitimate way to have a tournament that will have the very best team standing at the end is what MLB or the NBA do-  a series playoff.  It may not be right absolutely 100% of the time, but it is the best option.

[WayAbvPar]

In basketball a team has to win 6 consecutive games against other tournament teams. In football you can beat up on shitty D2 teams and a weak conference and waltz into a bowl game. Rankings don't mean shit in basketball after the tournament gets started.

[ghost]

You can't play a shitty schedule and waltz into the BCS, man.  

Okay.  So I've got a question for all you "tournament" guys.  How are you going to handle the logistics of it?  With 8 teams you would probably have a three to four week tournament to give the teams time to prepare, which is critical for football.  If the TV guys fuck with the timing it could even be worse.  Are the sites going to be neutral sites, like the basketball tournament, or will it be at the home of the top ranked team thus introducing a very high level of bias to the final result?  Are teams with even rabid fans, like Ohio State, going to drive all the way across the country for three games?  How does this fit into scheduling?  Are you going to have three less regular season games, thus driving down revenue for the individual schools?  I just don't think it will work, even if you assume that the end result is the best team for the year. 

[Chimpy]

Ohio State has had, overall, a pretty "easy" schedule for them for the last 5 years as most of the big ten teams have been mediocre at best.

But they are in a BCS bowl every year.

Yes, the Big Ten has traditionally been a better conference than say, the WAC, but that does not mean that they are uber good top to bottom every year.

[Ingmar]

Is it time for my yearly post about wanting to go back to the way bowls were before the BCS existed? I honestly could not care less about whether we have a 'legitimate' national championship in college football, because (SPOILER ALERT) it isn't actually possible to do it. You can't even come close without asking these kids to play a bunch more games, which means more injuries, etc., and I think we're really already pushing the boundaries of acceptable there with some teams playing as many as 13 regular season games.

I'd much rather just see the Rose Bowl go back to matching up the Pac 10 and Big 10 champions and everything else can go hang, basically.

[Paelos]

You can't play a shitty schedule and waltz into the BCS, man.  

Okay.  So I've got a question for all you "tournament" guys.  How are you going to handle the logistics of it? 

8 teams get in. The winners of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, PAC-10, WAC, and Mt. West. Cry me a fucking river if you think your conference is better and deserves more slots, win your division or GTFO. Seed them accordingly to poll rankings. First round is played at the home site of the top 4 seeds, on Dec. 18th. Then, you take a week off. Next two games are played on January 1st, at neutral traditional predesignated bowl game sites. Then you play the final on Monday night, January 10th (the current time for the Championship game).

All those timings coincide directly with all the other bowl games going on, and we have a break in there for Christmas. The champion plays two extra games instead of taking 40 days off between the regular season and the final match. Done. I'll cash my check now.

[Nebu]

I'd modify it.  Top 6 teams get in from the BCS rankings.  4 others play for the last two spots (wildcard).  That gives the top 6 teams a week of rest (for finals the first week of December because these are... laugh... students)

The BCS top 10 isn't a bad metric for picking the best 10 teams.  We see a weakness in the BCS when we start to worry about specific ranks. 

[Paelos]

Conference champions are better though because it takes all the human element out of deciding who gets in. All the human element decides at that point is where.

[Nebu]

Conference champions are better though because it takes all the human element out of deciding who gets in. All the human element decides at that point is where.

You need the human element for financial reasons.  You want the 10 perceived top teams to be involved for financial reasons.

Of course, all of this would be meaningless in my ideal world.  I think that high dollar sports need to be removed from the college educational system.  Almost none of the top men's collegiate athletes in big money sports could care less about their education.  If they did, the ivy league would have the top athletic programs.  

[ghost]

There still will be arguments from the folks that didn't get in. 

[Paelos]

You need the human element for financial reasons.  You want the 10 perceived top teams to be involved for financial reasons.

I disagree. Most of Here's how it would have looked in 2009. The only team that would have been screwed out of the playoff was Florida, and they deserved it.

Game 1: #1 Alabama v. #8 Georgia Tech - Alabama easily moves on in this one. Still, in Alabama this game draws massive attention and dollars.
Game 2: #2 Texas v. #7 Ohio State - Huge matchup, solid game, huge dollars.
Game 3: #3 Cincinnati v. #6 Oregon - Cincy had no coach, and Oregon probably wouldn't travel well to Cincy so this is a wash.
Game 4: #4 TCU v. #5 Boise State - we saw this one, Boise won. It was also a freaking snoozer for most of the game.

Game 5: #1 Alabama v. #5 Boise State - They had trouble with TCU's defense, I don't see how they would have beaten Bama's that year. Still they get a shot.
Game 6: #2 OHSt./Texas v. #6 Oregon - Huge ratings draw, I don't think Oregon gets past this point, but againt OHSt. it would be possible.

Game 7: #1 Alabama v. #2 Texas/Oregon/OHSt. - at least at this point we have a chance at seeing something different. Money rains down as usual.

[ghost]

And we saw Texas versus Alabama. 

[Paelos]

And we saw Texas versus Alabama. 

Yep, in one of the 3 options possible there. Who knows how the others go, and also can you imagine how much more money these games rack up when they are meaningful?

[ghost]

And we saw Texas versus Alabama. 

Yep, in one of the 3 options possible there. Who knows how the others go, and also can you imagine how much more money these games rack up when they are meaningful?

They already rack up a ton of money. 

The other issue that hasn't been addressed is injury.  Obviously McCoy's injury hurt Texas pretty badly.  More games = more injuries.