2008 College Football Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 4

SP1!

11-08-2008, 06:04 AM

Is this the NFL draft thread, or the college football thread?

Damn I hate when people knock how well someone plays in college based on their "all knowing" predictions on how they will perform "at the next level".

And enough with the "product of a system" arguement. Tebow is hardly Danny Wuerffel. You can't tell me that you could put Todd Reesing's scrawny ass into the Gaytor huddle and that he'd be able to run this offense the same way.

Yes it is the college thread but thats what they are all going for that next level. There are a lot of people who wont make it to the next level he is just the most glaring example of a superstar in college that wont make it in the NFL if he doesnt change position, like matt jones did. And you have to remember he has a lot of talent around him but still makes it into a one man show, he does not progress through his reads very well and his first instinct is to pull the ball down and run.

Doesnt matter, bama is going to kill them, if our line was able to block them bamas line will push them 5 yds down the field with ease like they did to us.

SP1!

11-08-2008, 02:41 PM

Well so much for anyone arguing that Penn State deserve to go to the NC game.

epo

11-08-2008, 02:45 PM

Well so much for anyone arguing that Penn State deserve to go to the NC game.

At least Joe Paterno still has good seats for the game.

Tenbatsuzen

11-08-2008, 03:17 PM

Awful start by WVU (103 KO return for TD) but the game has stablized a bit.

Tenbatsuzen

11-08-2008, 03:23 PM

Rutgers is also now 4-5.

It is VERY possible for them to run the table with the schedule they have left and how they've been playing and finish with a respectable 7-5 record.

ScottFromGA

11-08-2008, 03:42 PM

anyone see the Alabama/LSU game? I still have not seen footage of the Bama QB getting into the end zone in OT....

razorboy

11-08-2008, 06:27 PM

I really can't wait for the Red Raiders/Sooners game.

Tenbatsuzen

11-08-2008, 06:44 PM

Ugh. What an awful loss for WVU.

I turned off the game on XM to listen to CT and Jivin because the Cincy color guy was insufferable, cheering "YES! YES! YES!" at the top of his lungs.

I was watching the game out of the corner of my eye on ESPN.com, and then realized that WVU came from down 20-7 to tying it.

And then OT. bleah.

and they cincy announcers blow.

Another reason why Ohio sucks.

SP1!

11-08-2008, 06:50 PM

Rutgers is also now 4-5.

It is VERY possible for them to run the table with the schedule they have left and how they've been playing and finish with a respectable 7-5 record.

Thats why we laugh at the big east, for us 7-5 most SEC teams would be thinking of firing the coach.

More upsets this week, can USC hang on? If cal can quit making mistakes they will beat USC.

PhilDeez

11-08-2008, 06:53 PM

anyone see the Alabama/LSU game? I still have not seen footage of the Bama QB getting into the end zone in OT....

It was a sneak from the 1 yd line, nothing impressive - the play that set it up was. Julio Jones is the real deal.

Tenbatsuzen

11-08-2008, 06:54 PM

Thats why we laugh at the big east, for us 7-5 most SEC teams would be thinking of firing the coach.

More upsets this week, can USC hang on? If cal can quit making mistakes they will beat USC.

What the hell is wrong with you? The Big East is still a developing league. For Rutgers to make a bowl after the start it had this year would be a very good thing. We're not saying we have the tradition or the history that the SEC has.

Stop fucking trashing the Big East for the sake of being cool.

Epschtein

11-08-2008, 07:09 PM

considering oklahoma state's ranking and the margin of victory - could texas tech take over the number one spot ?

hammersavage

11-08-2008, 07:16 PM

It was a sneak from the 1 yd line, nothing impressive - the play that set it up was. Julio Jones is the real deal.

Julio Jones is gonna be a great pro. He runs the best, most crisp routes and is always in position to make a catch. And he runs hard after the catch too.

Bryant, Crabtree and Jones are the next group of great NFL WR's. Can't wait to watch them.

SP1!

11-08-2008, 07:17 PM

What the hell is wrong with you? The Big East is still a developing league. For Rutgers to make a bowl after the start it had this year would be a very good thing. We're not saying we have the tradition or the history that the SEC has.

Stop fucking trashing the Big East for the sake of being cool.

My biggest problem is that the big east in no way deserves an automatic BCS bowl game, none of their teams are that good every year and WVU may get worse since they have to recruit more players. And Im not being cool, I think its sad that they held the BCS hostage for the few decent teams they had at the time.

hammersavage

11-08-2008, 07:18 PM

considering oklahoma state's ranking and the margin of victory - could texas tech take over the number one spot ?

I think it could happen but probably won't. Bama was .975 and Texas Tech was .937 in the latest BCS. That mite be too much to jump when Bama won, even though it they struggled.

hammersavage

11-08-2008, 07:19 PM

SP1!

11-08-2008, 07:21 PM

considering oklahoma state's ranking and the margin of victory - could texas tech take over the number one spot ?

Yeah considering bama played a team that got killed the last two times they played a ranked opponent and TT whipped a top 10 team.

PhilDeez

11-08-2008, 07:49 PM

I agree. And I'm a Big East follower. Take away their automatic bid as well as the putrid ACC. Cincy and VaTech might get a BCS game. That's a problem.

Both leagues are down this year, it happens to all conferences except the SEC and Big 12. Look at how putrid the Pac10 is, and even the Big 10 this year.
On Va Tech, if and its a big if, they do get through the ACC they are the most deserving team. Aside from Florida St. and BC they would have beaten all the other teams you left out of your list.
Cinci can say the same if they hold serve. Beat WVU at home, a ranked South Florida team, and will have had to beat a hot Pitt team as well.
Okay take the auto bids away and give them to who - the MAC, WAC, C-USA? Or more at larges so we have re-matches of games earlier in the season?

Freakshow

11-09-2008, 04:16 AM

Snoogans

11-09-2008, 09:07 AM

My biggest problem is that the big east in no way deserves an automatic BCS bowl game, none of their teams are that good every year and WVU may get worse since they have to recruit more players. And Im not being cool, I think its sad that they held the BCS hostage for the few decent teams they had at the time.

You seem to forget pretty fuckin quick that the only reason the Big East is weaker and has to build is cause the at the time awful ACC completely raped the conference in the middle of the night and took its 3 best programs. They are going to need some time to get back but the NCAA will give them the time because they deserve it.

And do we also forget that the big east over the last 3 years is like 12-3 in its bowl games (exact record may be wrong, i dont remember, its something like that)

Snoogans

11-09-2008, 09:09 AM

Margin of victory is not a part of any of the computer polls, so that won't play any part. And there is zero chance the voters will jump them over Alabama, since they beat the defending national champion on the road.

thats the dumbest thing Ive heard. It may not play into the computer poll, but it sure as fuck plays a huge part cause it plays BIG TIME into the human polls, which play into the BCS.

You may be right about no one jumping Bama, but its not cause margin of victory plays no part

SP1!

11-09-2008, 12:33 PM

Both leagues are down this year, it happens to all conferences except the SEC and Big 12. Look at how putrid the Pac10 is, and even the Big 10 this year.
On Va Tech, if and its a big if, they do get through the ACC they are the most deserving team. Aside from Florida St. and BC they would have beaten all the other teams you left out of your list.
Cinci can say the same if they hold serve. Beat WVU at home, a ranked South Florida team, and will have had to beat a hot Pitt team as well.
Okay take the auto bids away and give them to who - the MAC, WAC, C-USA? Or more at larges so we have re-matches of games earlier in the season?
I dont think the big east is down, I think a couple teams were playing over their head the past couple of years. The only real team the big east has is west virginia and time will tell where they go after rich's recruits have all left.

Margin of victory is not a part of any of the computer polls, so that won't play any part. And there is zero chance the voters will jump them over Alabama, since they beat the defending national champion on the road.
Margin plays a huge part in the human polls which are 1/3rd of the BCS so it will factor in to the final numbers and there is a very good chance they could jump bama based on who they played and where the teams they beat were ranked. Even if they dont it will be pretty fucking close in the final numbers of the BCS and if they jump them it will be another argument against the BCS since teams are dropping or getting jumped even if they win, if this keeps up you can bet the screaming will get louder.

You seem to forget pretty fuckin quick that the only reason the Big East is weaker and has to build is cause the at the time awful ACC completely raped the conference in the middle of the night and took its 3 best programs. They are going to need some time to get back but the NCAA will give them the time because they deserve it.

And do we also forget that the big east over the last 3 years is like 12-3 in its bowl games (exact record may be wrong, i dont remember, its something like that)
Well even if they had those teams back it would be very competitive, miami would look better because the other teams are just shitty so that doesnt really solve the problem. Miami, BC, and VT wouldnt have made the big east that much better since the ACC is way down again yet they still can roll over those teams.

Epschtein

11-09-2008, 02:35 PM

"First-place Alabama (.981) was No. 1 in both the Harris and USA Today coaches' polls. Second-place Texas Tech (.972) was a solid second in both polls and first in the computer rankings. The computers have Alabama No. 2."

almost ...

pennington

11-09-2008, 03:18 PM

My biggest problem is that the big east in no way deserves an automatic BCS bowl game, none of their teams are that good every year and WVU may get worse since they have to recruit more players. And Im not being cool, I think its sad that they held the BCS hostage for the few decent teams they had at the time.

The Bowls and the networks that carry them are a business. When they choose who to invite, they look at who will bring bigger ratings in certain areas of the country and who will send more dedicated fans to fill up the arena to make a better show. They do this so they can get more money from the sponsors who in turn want to get more money from customers with their advertising.

The sponsors already have the SEC yahoos locked up with NASCAR so they want geographic diversity. Nobody is holding the BCS hostage, they want the Big East there. This is the same reason Notre Dame goes to a bowl whether they deserve it or not; they have fans in most parts of the country.

Sorry to let reality invade...

Snoogans

11-09-2008, 05:06 PM

I dont think the big east is down, I think a couple teams were playing over their head the past couple of years. The only real team the big east has is west virginia and time will tell where they go after rich's recruits have all left.

Margin plays a huge part in the human polls which are 1/3rd of the BCS so it will factor in to the final numbers and there is a very good chance they could jump bama based on who they played and where the teams they beat were ranked. Even if they dont it will be pretty fucking close in the final numbers of the BCS and if they jump them it will be another argument against the BCS since teams are dropping or getting jumped even if they win, if this keeps up you can bet the screaming will get louder.

Well even if they had those teams back it would be very competitive, miami would look better because the other teams are just shitty so that doesnt really solve the problem. Miami, BC, and VT wouldnt have made the big east that much better since the ACC is way down again yet they still can roll over those teams.

well also, miami would have kept getting the best players since they were the cream of their conf. They were the best team in the country for a few years before they left, even the game they lost to ohio state they got fucked on that interference call, everyone knows they won that game.

I think had they not left, the conf would be much better (obviously), including some of the other teams who were in the conf then and suck now. it woulda helped them all.

TheGameHHH

11-09-2008, 05:53 PM

PhilDeez

11-09-2008, 07:12 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3692574

i seriously cant take much more of Charlie Weis. First the offense sucks so he decides to step away and let other coaches take control of calling plays because he felt he was too spread out. Now the offense still sucks and he thinks the solution is for him to step back in and call plays. guess what, its not. the problem is your QB sucks, plain and simple. youve had like 4 years now and Notre Dame still sucks, please leave.

I despise ND and Charlie Weis, and rarely get more pleasure than through the demise of both. However, Clausen, as much as I wish he would suck balls, is improving. I see a progression much like Quinn. First 2 years suck, 3rd is better, and at the end of his senior year he is a Heisman candidate, first round pick.

razorboy

11-09-2008, 07:32 PM

I despise ND and Charlie Weis, and rarely get more pleasure than through the demise of both. However, Clausen, as much as I wish he would suck balls, is improving. I see a progression much like Quinn. First 2 years suck, 3rd is better, and at the end of his senior year he is a Heisman candidate, first round pick.

Jimmy Clausen is a baby-handed waterhead. He makes some of the most head-scratching reads and throws I've ever seen. He comes from a family with a rich heratige of shitty quarterbacks. Why should anyone expect him to be any different?

SP1!

11-09-2008, 07:36 PM

The Bowls and the networks that carry them are a business. When they choose who to invite, they look at who will bring bigger ratings in certain areas of the country and who will send more dedicated fans to fill up the arena to make a better show. They do this so they can get more money from the sponsors who in turn want to get more money from customers with their advertising.

The sponsors already have the SEC yahoos locked up with NASCAR so they want geographic diversity. Nobody is holding the BCS hostage, they want the Big East there. This is the same reason Notre Dame goes to a bowl whether they deserve it or not; they have fans in most parts of the country.

Sorry to let reality invade...
Oh I realize why they think they are doing it but in reality nobody watches just because a big east team is playing, they just dont care about college football in the northeast, usually it cause their teams just suck. There arent big east fans that watch and the only remaining big east team that travels well is WVU, the NE loves pro ball since they grew up with that and the south, the midwest, and the west grew up with college ball so thats where their heart will always be. Oh just FYI, most of the people who watch college football cant stand NASCAR, I know I hate it and most of the people who watch it with me hate it as well.

well also, miami would have kept getting the best players since they were the cream of their conf. They were the best team in the country for a few years before they left, even the game they lost to ohio state they got fucked on that interference call, everyone knows they won that game.

I think had they not left, the conf would be much better (obviously), including some of the other teams who were in the conf then and suck now. it woulda helped them all.
Well Miami has been in trouble since the cheating allegations so until they get past that they will be average so give them a couple more years.

Tenbatsuzen

11-09-2008, 07:37 PM

Weis is also brilliant, he's putting off getting his knee worked on until MARCH because he doesn't want it interfering with recruiting.

Because, you know, Charlie Weis is the picture of health and he's never had issues with infections before.

El Mudo

11-10-2008, 04:21 AM

He should get at least an invite to NY.
How bout Darren Evans after his 253 against the mightly Terps last night? Kidding of course had to get the dig in.
I still thing McCoy will take the trophey this year, despite the loss to Texas Tech. He has the best numbers of anyone in huge games even with the loss to Texas Tech he lead his team back to what should have been a win.

*sigh*

Well, we are still in contention in the Division at least, we have beaten Wake, so we've got the tiebreaker on them, and our next (and final) 3 games are NC, FSU and BC...sweep those and we're in the Conference title game.

I've given up on trying to predict things from them...theyre just really mediocre this year, and so is the conference...i take it from week to week.

And hell, we're already bowl eligible, as much as I hope that we make the conference title game and the Orange Bowl i'm not gonna be too upset if they don't considering how wacky this year has been

Freakshow

11-10-2008, 05:22 AM

thats the dumbest thing Ive heard. It may not play into the computer poll, but it sure as fuck plays a huge part cause it plays BIG TIME into the human polls, which play into the BCS.

You may be right about no one jumping Bama, but its not cause margin of victory plays no part

I was right. And Alabama went from 46 first place votes to 44, so there was almost no effect of the margin of victory jumping ship to TT. Just about everyone who voted Alabama number one oreviously will continue to vote them number one until they lose.

And take a look next week when Texas Tech doesn't play. They will lose points in the computer polls for being idle. Hell one poll has Texas number one and TT number two. That makes a whole lot of sense right there...

toolshed

11-10-2008, 05:25 AM

*sigh*

Well, we are still in contention in the Division at least, we have beaten Wake, so we've got the tiebreaker on them, and our next (and final) 3 games are NC, FSU and BC...sweep those and we're in the Conference title game.

I've given up on trying to predict things from them...theyre just really mediocre this year, and so is the conference...i take it from week to week.

And hell, we're already bowl eligible, as much as I hope that we make the conference title game and the Orange Bowl i'm not gonna be too upset if they don't considering how wacky this year has been

The Terps are still in it. Wake is gonna fall apart on at least one of their remaining games. The FSU/Maryland game will decide the Atlantic division. I think UNC is gonna represent the Coastal...a matchup I like better for FSU. I don't want to play Miami or GT again.

SP1!

11-10-2008, 08:36 AM

I was right. And Alabama went from 46 first place votes to 44, so there was almost no effect of the margin of victory jumping ship to TT. Just about everyone who voted Alabama number one oreviously will continue to vote them number one until they lose.

And take a look next week when Texas Tech doesn't play. They will lose points in the computer polls for being idle. Hell one poll has Texas number one and TT number two. That makes a whole lot of sense right there...

They lost votes even though they won and even lost ground in the BCS polls so how does that cause you to gloat? Oh thats right PSU got smacked, like I knew they would and you have to talk about something now.

I hope it stays this way till the end of the year cause this TT team has a good chance at beating bama or florida and I will love it when that happens.

Freakshow

11-10-2008, 08:54 AM

They lost votes even though they won and even lost ground in the BCS polls so how does that cause you to gloat? Oh thats right PSU got smacked, like I knew they would and you have to talk about something now.

I hope it stays this way till the end of the year cause this TT team has a good chance at beating bama or florida and I will love it when that happens.

Tech will lose points in the next BCS. Mark it down.

JimBeam

11-10-2008, 10:48 AM

Texas Tech will lose points next week because they're gonna lose the game.

The thing that bothers me about saying the Big 12 is the best is that by the end of this some of those teams that were so highly ranked may have 3 losses.

Oklahoma St could very well lose to Oklahoma which would give them 3 losses so how good are they ?

Why would they be any better than a 3 loss LSU team ?

However, Clausen, as much as I wish he would suck balls, is improving. I see a progression much like Quinn. First 2 years suck, 3rd is better, and at the end of his senior year he is a Heisman candidate, first round pick.

I'm an ND fan, and try to stay as positive as possible, but I think Clausen is a 21st century Powlus.

He can look good, although never great, when he wins but when he loses he looks AWFUL !!

4 interceptions ?

That's unacceptable.

I keep hearing about how good he is w/ the fade but when I've seen him need to have that play ( several times against Pitt ) he never converts.

I will give Weis one more year before I declare him the worst ever.

Going from 3-9 to 8-5 ( counting getting that bowl losing streak off of our back ) is a step in the right direction.

Freakshow

11-10-2008, 10:58 AM

Texas Tech doesn't play Oklahoma for 2 weeks. They will lose points in the BCS without even playing a game. That's how it works.

razorboy

11-10-2008, 11:19 AM

Texas Tech will lose points because they're gonna lose the game.

I'm not so sure.

SP1!

11-10-2008, 11:35 AM

I'm not so sure.

Yeah Im not so sure TT loses that game either, OU isnt that good.

Also TT may lose pts but they may actually gain points in the computer polls if their opponents win, its the computer polls that will boost their strength of schedule and therefore boost TT's as well. Also this team is not someone that people will easily forget since they are blowing everyone out, not just their crappy teams in their conference but they smoke their top team and a second top tier big 12 team. There is a very good chance that TT may beat OU by more than they beat OSU.

Freakshow

11-10-2008, 11:44 AM

The Oklahoma game is on the road. It's impressive, but not that telling to beat Texas and Oklahoma State at home. I think they will have their hands full in Norman.

JimBeam

11-10-2008, 12:06 PM

There is a very good chance that TT may beat OU by more than they beat OSU.

What are you basing this chance on ?

The fact that Texas Tech beat Texas by 6 and OU lost by 10 ?

What about the fact that Texas Tech needed overtime to beat a Nebraska team 37-31 that Oklahoma handled 62-28 ?

Or that Texas Tech beat A&M by 18 when Oklahoma beat them by 38 ( 66-28 ) ?

Texas Tech did beat Kansas by 42 ( 63-21 ) while Oklahoma only beat them by 14 ( 45-31 ).

Oklahoma also played a ranked and at the time unbeaten TCU team and a Cincinnati team that might be ranked by the end of the year while Texas Tech played Eastern Washington, UMass, Nevada and SMU.

The game will be in Norman and not in Lubbock where Texas Tech has scored their 2 biggest victories.

Stoops may suck in planning for bowl games but I bet he's got something in mind that'll keep Texas Tech under wraps.

razorboy

11-10-2008, 12:19 PM

Stoops may suck in planning for bowl games but I bet he's got something in mind that'll keep Texas Tech under wraps.

Mike Leach knows Stoops' defense just as well as Stoops knows Leach's offense. On top of that, aside from the defensive line (and the difference there isn't all that glaring), I simply thaink that the Red Raiders have the overall more talented team this year.

JimBeam

11-10-2008, 12:34 PM

I disagree because I think Oklahoma's running game is better and that'll make the difference in the passing game.

Bradford's throwing, literally, up similar numbers to Harrell, if not better, while at the same time allowing his RBs to run the ball more.

I'd have thought Oklahoma's D was much better but when you look at the numbers they are very similar.

JimBeam

11-11-2008, 11:19 AM

I've been hearing and reading a lot about how the BCS is screwed up because of the issue in the Big 12.

Why is the BCS getting blame for the fact that the conference itself doesn't have a proper way to determine who would win the tie breaker ?

They'd still be in this predicament even if the Big 12 title game was the last game of the year.

Even if we had the playoff so many people want wouldn't the representative from the Big 12 still have to be decided by the Big 12 title game in which only one of the teams from the South can go ?

Even if you ditched the Big 12 title game would it be fair to allow 3 teams from the Big 12 to compete in an 8 team playoff ?

Of course not.

A 3 way tie for the Big 12 South may screw up the BCS but it's surely not the fault of the BCS.

toolshed

11-12-2008, 12:23 PM

Good news for Mudo...

Multiple FSU players, including key receivers and linebackers, involved in an altercation with fraternity members on campus today. Multiple suspensions likely.

razorboy

11-12-2008, 12:27 PM

Good news for Mudo...

Multiple FSU players, including key receivers and linebackers, involved in an altercation with fraternity members on campus today. Multiple suspensions likely.

We'll see. It appears to be a case of self defense/defending teamates.

toolshed

11-12-2008, 12:29 PM

We'll see. It appears to be a case of self defense/defending teamates.

I hope it is all self-defense, but they are suspension-happy this year. Trying to clean up the teams image.

ozzie

11-12-2008, 12:36 PM

toolshed

11-12-2008, 12:41 PM

There isn't anything official out yet. I read it on a student-run fansite...noleinsider.com

JimBeam

11-12-2008, 12:43 PM

Finally people got back to this thread.

I've been bored out of my mind at work today and was waiting for somebody, anybody to post in here.

I guess each university is different with regards to it's athlete/fraternity relationships but I can honestly say that at LSU, in the early to mid-90's, there was really no interaction one way or the other.

Occasionally you might have an issue at a bar but rarely anything at the fraternity houses themselves.

For the most part they were 2 seperate social entities.

I always thought the fights happened more at smaller schools where the groups overlapped more.

razorboy

11-12-2008, 12:46 PM

Anyone got a link to the story?

Best I can offer.

http://www.noleinsider.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=342:fsu-players-involved-in-campus-incident-today&catid=56:jameys-blog&Itemid=65

toolshed

11-12-2008, 12:49 PM

And there is this, more speculation: http://www.tomahawknation.com/2008/11/12/659743/phi-beta-sigma-v-fsu-s-rec

FSU players don't normally frequent that area, and the word is that there was an incident over the weekend at a local club that wasn't really picked up on. Maybe carryover from that.

JimBeam

11-12-2008, 05:10 PM

So on my way home from work I'm listening to Mad Dog Unleashed and once again he proves to me that he's knows nothing about college football.

In the discussion of college football playoffs he mentions that the university presidents site the student athlete and he goes on that good schools, like Amherst and Williams, can have playoffs so why can't, what I figure he guesses not good schools, have them as well.

Yeah because Notre Dame and Stanford are awful schools with only their sports giving them credibility.

Then he's off on a tangent saying that football players don't go to class and that shouldn't matter.

Now why I think there are probably players at schools that take liberties with their academics I doubt it's to the conspiracy level that he'd like to think.

KingKill

11-12-2008, 08:41 PM

Snoogans

11-12-2008, 08:54 PM

The best football teams are in the SEC and if they ever started a play off system they would win it even more than they do in the current system. The only way to assure that other schools win is to have a BCS thus getting the other teams a shot.

I am not saying other schools arent good its just that if you have a play off 3 to 4 of the top 16 teams if not more would always be SEC and at most there would be 2 of the other Conferences giving the SEC the edge.

I hate the BCS and would love a play off but it will never happen.

i dont get how people can hate the way it is now. I get wanting a playoff, i can understand that.

But why hate what has created the best season ever. ive been saying for awhile that every game in college matters. Even shitty teams with bad records, those games matter, rivalry games matter.

But to any team who has hope of being important, every single weak matters. Its so much better than any other sport because of this

toolshed

11-13-2008, 04:19 AM

The best football teams are in the SEC and if they ever started a play off system they would win it even more than they do in the current system. The only way to assure that other schools win is to have a BCS thus getting the other teams a shot.

I am not saying other schools arent good its just that if you have a play off 3 to 4 of the top 16 teams if not more would always be SEC and at most there would be 2 of the other Conferences giving the SEC the edge.

I hate the BCS and would love a play off but it will never happen.

I want a playoff too, and agree that it won't happen as well. But I disagree that the SEC would dominate every year. Outside of Alabama and Florida, the SEC is having a down year this year. SEC has shown a tendency to blow it in OOC bowl games as well. And, since most teams don't have to play the SEC throughout the season, they don't prep for their type of game. Give most conferences a year or two of prepping for the SEC run and defense, and the good teams would catch up pretty quickly.

JimBeam

11-13-2008, 08:15 AM

I also hate when people bring up the fact that it's unfair that the SEC, ACC and Big 12 have title games when the PAC10, Big 10 and Big East don't have them.

How is that unfair ?

If anything it's actually more fair and represents more of a playoff than the alternative.

At least those title games eliminate somebody ( for the most part ).

Without those conference title games how could you tell who should play for the National Title between Alabama and UF ?

Would Alabama get the nod because they didn't have a loss and UF did ?

Could anybody honestly say that Alabama is the better team just because they beat Ole Miss and UF didn't ?

UF will have beaten the same top opponents ( UGA and LSU ) and a possibly ranked FSU team.

Now I know the Big 12 title game is going to cause more of an issue this year, unless Missouri pulls off the upset ( in which case it answers every question with regards to the national title and that would be that the Big 12 South winner isn't qualified ), but at the very least it will set one of the South teams apart from the others.

I think the winners of the PAC10 and Big 10 should play in a game before the bowls with the winner getting the same boost in the BCS standings that the winner of the 3 conference title games gets.

It's essentiually your Rose Bowl but it's played a few weeks earlier.

You could then have the Big East winner play the winner of the MWC or something like that.

ozzie

11-13-2008, 09:05 AM

i dont get how people can hate the way it is now. I get wanting a playoff, i can understand that.

But why hate what has created the best season ever. ive been saying for awhile that every game in college matters. Even shitty teams with bad records, those games matter, rivalry games matter.

But to any team who has hope of being important, every single weak matters. Its so much better than any other sport because of this

I love this game the way it is, but I hate how teams or entire conferences are eliminated, or never have a chance to compete for a championship.

I would love for someone to explain to me how a season end playoff would hurt the regular season, or make it any less meaningful.

Few if any teams play anyone outside of their own conference anyway, so it's all about winning your conference NOW... and it would still be that way to qualify for a playoff.

Every game would still matter. How would they not?

Biggest difference with a playoff... the fans of every conference would still have HOPE this year.

Right now, for all intents and purposes, the ACC is OUT. The Big East is OUT. Fans of the Pac 10 have to hope for Oregon State to lose, or they're OUT. The Big 10 would need a miracle, so would the MWC, WAC and especially the MAC.

Games in these conferences do NOT "matter" to anyone outside of those areas, or have Nat'l Champ implications. You get a playoff, suddenly they DO "matter". It'd be like following the pennant races or the NFL division races X 10.

The NFL loves their parity, and the fact that so many 7-8 or 8-7 teams and fans still have playoff hopes until the final game. It adds interest and excitement.

This year, come December 6th, the ony two games that might matter in Div-1A could be the SEC and Big 12 Championship games, and only fans of those conferences or true college football fans will care.

And as far as "shitty teams with bad records" or "rivalry games"... if those "matter" to you now, when they aren't playing for anything, how would they NOT "matter" to you if others are competing for a playoff? They're not playing for anything other than pride now, and a playoff wouldn't take anything away from that.

Bottom line... I'm with you. I don't want to see anything happen to ruin my favorite sport, but I really don't see how a playoff could do anything but make it better.

Snoogans

11-13-2008, 09:25 AM

I love this game the way it is, but I hate how teams or entire conferences are eliminated, or never have a chance to compete for a championship.

I would love for someone to explain to me how a season end playoff would hurt the regular season, or make it any less meaningful.

r.

assuming you have an 8 team playoff, it wouldnt do a ton for those small conferences. If they want a good shot at a national championship, schedule huge OOC games. iuf a BYU goes undefeated with out of conf games against say a big 12, a big 10, and 2 of the other BCS conf, they would be in a BCS game no question. Some of it has to fall on the schools for still scheduling some shit games.

also over the last 2 or 3 years and prob moreso over the next 5 or so, the conf gaps will get smaller. The scholarship rules, the emergence of some of these mid majors as real players will only get them more kids.

And you need some of those beat up on schools that have no chance. Thats a place where a kid who would backup 4 years at a florida gets to go shine and have a chance at a future.

JimBeam

11-13-2008, 10:17 AM

ozzie

11-13-2008, 11:19 AM

That's exactly the problem with saying lt's take the 8 teams with the best records.

Regardless of what you think about each conference's stenghts there's no way rationally you could say that a team from the MWC going 13-0 or even 12-1 is comparable to a BCS league school having the same record.

It's not apples to apples.

It's not even like arguing that the winner of the AL East had a tougher road to the World Series than a team from the AL West because at least in that sceanrio there are common opponents.

Ditto for so an NFC East is tougher than an NFC West argument.

But really is a playoff necessary ?

Has anybody stopped watching college football because USC and LSU split a title a few years ago ?

You'll never have a unanimous champion, beyond any question, ever.

Even if an undfeated Alabama team beat an undefeated Texas Tech team you'd still have people saying that USC, Texas or Penn St might be better.

You really couldn't say, without question, that they were wrong.

All you could say is that a team from one of the best conferences went undefeated and w/ that they deserved to be called the champion.

MLB and NFL have playoffs, so there is a head to head chance to prove which division champ is better. Any argument during the regular season is settled on the field at the end of the year, and the team from the "stronger" division doesn't always win.

So, tell me... what exactly would it take for a "mid-major" conference school to have a chance? Obviously just going undefeated isn't good enough.

And don't tell me "schedule tougher teams". The BCS schools make their own schedules, and most are filling them up with 1-AA schools or Sun Belt, or if they do dip into other BCS or "mid-major" conferences, they're not going after the tough teams.

Look how many dropped MAC teams after they started knocking off some of the big boys.

Most schools might schedule ONE decent non-conference game.

And even if they did get a BCS school to agree to play them, most won't agree to a home-and-home series... they'll only agree for them to come to their place.

If this is the way everyone wants it, then why not at least consider creating another division of just the "BCS" schools, and then limit them to just playing each other, and prohibit them from being able to schedule out of this division?

My point is simply that you have 120 schools in this division now, but only half have a legitamate shot at playing for a championship.

Yet there are over 300 Div-1A College Basketball Schools from over 30 conferences, and every one of them has a chance to compete for the championship, and everyone seems happy with this arrangement.

They seem to crown a "unanimous champion, beyond any question" every year, so I don't get your point.

And by pointing out that more than two teams this year have legitamate claims to have a chance to play for the title, aren't you contradicting yourself, and making the point for a need for a playoff?

You're exactly right. It's not apples to apples, and never will be under this system.

If you only reward teams that are able to survive undefeated, then you discourage teams from taking chances on scheduling non-conference games they are not guaranteed a win, and also punishing conferences where it's tough for one team to survive undefeated.

And even if you do manage to go undefeated, sometimes THAT is not even good enough. See Auburn 2004.

We're told THAT team didn't deserve to play because of their schedule... yet Texas Tech DOES deserve a chance because there might only be one or two undefeated teams this year? Even though they scheduled TWO Div-1AA opponents?

Every year it's subjective. There is not ONE set of criteria that you have to meet to qualify, and obviously not every school controls their own destiny. They're reliant on what everyone else does, and how many other teams end up with the same record they have in any given year.

You can't sit down with a coach or AD and tell them who they have to schedule in order to have a chance. And a coach can't honestly tell his team that if they work hard and win them all, that they will be rewarded with a chance at the title.

To me, that's the problem.

So because people still watch the games, that is justification for leaving things the way they are?

All I'm asking is... what is everyone afraid of?

Yes, I love watching the games now, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved.

So far no one has explained to me how a playoff would hurt the game, or make anything less meaningful.

Is it "necessary"? No, I guess not. Not as long as you're ok with "experts" telling you who the two best teams in the country are, or these "experts" telling the players that they really don't care how tough it was (or wasn't) to play through tough conditions, with injuries, in a hostile environment... and tell them that they didn't win by enough points, or that they're season is now over because they lost to an "inferior" opponent.

There over 50 games every weekend. I'm sure every Harris Poll voter and Coach watched them ALL before they cast their votes on Saturday night... right?

You do realize that the "Coaches Poll" is 1/3 of your BCS, and that their votes have to be cast before Sunday morning. Oh, and only 61 of the 120 coaches get to vote. I'm sure there are no bias's there, and I'm sure that an SEC head coach has plently of time to watch film on a WAC team that they will never play.

Yeah, this system is perfect. Why change it.

JimBeam

11-13-2008, 12:19 PM

I agree that some of the bigger conferences schedule lame non-conference games and I've called that out many times.

And by pointing out that more than two teams this year have legitamate claims to have a chance to play for the title, aren't you contradicting yourself, and making the point for a need for a playoff?

No I'm not because in a supposed playoff Texas Tech might have to go back and play a team, say Texas or Oklahoma, that it has already beaten and what would make you think that Texas winning the game the 2nd time entitles them to be #1 ?

Because they won the last game ? So the first win then means nothing ?

The comparison to basketball, from a logisitical standpoint alone, is silly.

Teams play 30+ games during their regular season, as compared to 13 in football, and play 3 times a week.

Football teams play once a week so should we expand the schedule to last until March in order to accomodate a playoff ?

You might say shorten the regular season but then you run into a problem of teams now playing even weaker oppenents in a short season. Not to mention you cheat the fans out of games they can watch on campus.

Another MAJOR difference between basketball and football is that the teams play the other teams in their conferences twice which allows for one to clearly say that they were better than the other by taking both games. Even they do split the season they'll more than likely play a 3rd time in the conference tournaments with one team having to win outright.

Now if the 3 teams from Big 12 South had the luxury of playing each other twice then we wouldn't speculate about who's better providing they didn't still end up tied.

ozzie

11-13-2008, 12:41 PM

I agree that some of the bigger conferences schedule lame non-conference games and I've called that out many times.

No I'm not because in a supposed playoff Texas Tech might have to go back and play a team, say Texas or Oklahoma, that it has already beaten and what would make you think that Texas winning the game the 2nd time entitles them to be #1 ?

Because they won the last game ? So the first win then means nothing ?

The comparison to basketball, from a logisitical standpoint alone, is silly.

Teams play 30+ games during their regular season, as compared to 13 in football, and play 3 times a week.

Football teams play once a week so should we expand the schedule to last until March in order to accomodate a playoff ?

You might say shorten the regular season but then you run into a problem of teams now playing even weaker oppenents in a short season. Not to mention you cheat the fans out of games they can watch on campus.

Another MAJOR difference between basketball and football is that the teams play the other teams in their conferences twice which allows for one to clearly say that they were better than the other by taking both games. Even they do split the season they'll more than likely play a 3rd time in the conference tournaments with one team having to win outright.

Now if the 3 teams from Big 12 South had the luxury of playing each other twice then we wouldn't speculate about who's better providing they didn't still end up tied.

Look, if we can't figure out who the best team in any conference is over 12 games, how can we possibly determing the two best teams in the country?

No one is suggesting making any changes to the regular season, or adding or taking away any games.

All I'm suggesting is that every conference champion is deserving of a chance to play in a "tournament" for the championship. That's where the comparison to basketball is valid.

There are 11 Div-1A conferences. If you give each a spot in a 16 team tourney, that leaves 5 "at large" spots to allow for BCS conferences with more than one "top 10" ranked team, or an Independent(s). And each conference is still free to decide their representative however they want. (Championship game, Best record, coin flip, whatever)

Have a tournament committee (Harris Poll Voters?) determine who gets the 5 "at large" spots, and you can keep provisions to make sure the mighty Golden Domers have a place at the table, just like the BCS gives them now (if you really want to).

16 teams = 4 rounds over 4 weeks.

If they start after the conference championship week, it's over by the first week in January.

Doesn't add any time to the season, or take away anything from the regular season.

And just like with the Basketball tourney, you could seed them by the current ranking system, and make adjustments where needed to ensure that two teams from the same conference would not have to meet unless they both made it to the championship game.

Div-1AA already does it. They start around the week of Thanksgiving and are done before Christmas.

Their "student athletes" seem to be just fine with it.

So what is the argument against this?

JimBeam

11-13-2008, 12:56 PM

There's no way to have a team from the WAC or Sun Belt automatically quailify for a playoff just beacuse they win their games.

I don't care if Texas Tech played UMass or Alabama played Western Kentucky because I know that both of them played a tougher conference schedule than anybody in the WAC or Sun Belt.

This is fact and not open to debate.

Obviously this is not so straight forward when you compare the current BCS conferences but this year it seems like the Big 12 and SEC are the toughest.

If anything I'd say you had to take 2 teams from the 6 BCS conferences and then maybe 4 wild cards to the other conferences.

Maybe 2 teams from the 5 conferences that have people ranked in the top 20 and then wild card picks.

ozzie

11-13-2008, 01:12 PM

There's no way to have a team from the WAC or Sun Belt automatically quailify for a playoff just beacuse they win their games.

Then you might as well buck them down to Div-1AA where at least they can play for something.

Why allow teams in a "subdivision" when they aren't allowed to compete for anything other than a paycheck and a consolation prize of a bowl game?

SP1!

11-13-2008, 05:36 PM

Then you might as well buck them down to Div-1AA where at least they can play for something.

Why allow teams in a "subdivision" when they aren't allowed to compete for anything other than a paycheck and a consolation prize of a bowl game?

You can honestly believe they deserve to play for anything more than that? If they want to think they belong offer to play a high ranked team instead of the shit they play before they reach their shit conference schedule.

PhilDeez

11-13-2008, 06:06 PM

Anyone watching this. Complete horseshit. Miami has had two fluke plays where fumbles by a Miami player have resulted in first and goal opportunities, you have to be kidding me.

KingKill

11-13-2008, 08:15 PM

The Sec is down tis year but that being said they have 3 teams in the top 10 and most likely they will all end up in at least the top 8. UGA shit the bed against Florida and Alabama but they have the telent to win out.

Year to year they put at least 4 and more often 6 top teams on the field and 3 that are above average.

The ACC has fallen short of the goal.

The Big Ten is more like the flaccid 3.
I am just glad Penn State lost if they got a shot at the big game it would have been a joke considering how awful the teams are in that conference this year.

The Big East teams have mostly fallen back to the dregs they have historically been.

The PAC 10 is USC and 9 high schools teams

The only conference that has close to the teams is the Big Twelve.

I hope we get an UO or TT playing either UF or Bama that would be the best match up.

ozzie

11-14-2008, 06:43 AM

You can honestly believe they deserve to play for anything more than that? If they want to think they belong offer to play a high ranked team instead of the shit they play before they reach their shit conference schedule.

No one can force another school to play them. You're making this out like the "mid-major" schools are afraid to play the BCS schools. Try taking a good hard look at who the BCS schools are scheduling. They are the ones with the upper hand.

Look for the last time LSU played a non-conference game on the road. Look at how many 1-AA teams the BCS schools are playing against. Look at what losing to East Carolina did to Va Tech and West Virginia early this year. Look at the sums of money they are paying Sun Belt and 1-AA teams to come to their place and get their ass kicked.

There's nothing for a top BCS program to gain (and everything to lose) by playing a tough "mid-major" school, and there's no way in hell they're going to give up a home game to play at their place. You guys have already said that the games they play in conference are tough enough to justify an undefeated team or one loss team from one of these BCS conferences to qualify to play for the title, so what's the incentive to take a chance on scheduling any "mid-major" team that might pose a threat?

They only have so many non-conference games as well. Utah scheduled Michigan and Oregon State for this year, and won them both, and beat #12 TCU. If they beat BYU at the end of the year, that would be their second ranked team. Is that enough?

I just don't get what everyone is so afraid of. If these teams are shit, then the first round games should be a cakewalk for your mighty BCS teams.

Oh, or are you afraid of another Boise State or Utah showing up one of your BCS conference champions... AGAIN.

Assuming Oklahoma knocks off Texas Tech, and wins their conference, and Florida takes the SEC, here's how I would see the bracket:

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/12/l_b07107e52f19452a8f5c9fe389258c39.jpg

If you award at large bids to the next 5 highest ranked teams, two would go to the Big 12, two to the SEC, and one to the Big 10.

I don't see the problem with giving all of the conference champs a chance to play in a tournament.

Freakshow

11-14-2008, 07:03 AM

ozzie

11-14-2008, 07:23 AM

El Mudo

11-14-2008, 07:41 AM

Awesome site that sells old skool football program posters (http://historicfootballposters.com/?partnercode=UNIWATCHBLOG)

This just became my computer wallpaper

http://historicfootballposters.com/Img/1949_Boston-University_vs_Maryland.jpg

JimBeam

11-14-2008, 08:53 AM

KingKill

11-14-2008, 10:40 AM

Florida lost to Ole Miss an unranked team ...in the even the sub par teams can beat the best teams on a given day.

I agree Florida beat the shit out of UGA ad Iam a UGA fan, however UGA did just as much to lose that game as Florida did to beat them ie they had the ball inside the 15 3 times and got 3 points. I didwatch the second half I was in San diego and the beach was calling

Its easy to play defense in conferences that have shitty offense teams. That being said UGA has played some crappie defense in at least 5 of thier games, but we beat LSU the defending champs and have won every game we should have won. We are getting luckie in the rankings based on the fact we have one of the most difficult schedules in 1A ball and had the #1 ranking pre season.
Maybe we will get to play Ohio or Penn State in a bowl game and get a chance to prove ourselves.

I think Bama will beat Florida but as much as I dislike Florida i would rather they win out and play for it all against TT they match up better in playing style.

I like that playoff bracket nice work

JimBean is right remeber all the hype Hawaii got before the sugar bowl and they where dismantled by UGA.

The better game would have been UGA vs USC and put Ill. against Hawaii but the fucking Rose Bowl had to have a Big Ten team and we as football fans got two unwatchable games unless you where a homer

JimBeam

11-14-2008, 11:12 AM

I do think a little too much is made of some of the bottom teams in the SEC though.

Upsets happen, in every conference, and that's what you had w/ Ole Miss beating UF.

That doesn't mean that Ole Miss could now go into say FSU and walk away w/ a win.

The top 5 or so teams in the SEC are usually great, as opposed to maybe some other conferences where only 3 or 4 teams can be considered that, but I don't think if you take the 6th best team from the SEC and put them in say the PAC10, Big 10 or ACC that they'd fair any better.

They might beat the worst teams in that conference more consistently but I'm not sure they'd compete for the league title.

ozzie

11-14-2008, 11:24 AM

The thing is NCAA and the BCS for that matter doesn't owe the small schools anything.

Just beacus they play organized football and happen to be included with the schools that do that at the highest level doesn't mean they should be considered for the same goals.

I don't think that anybody would deny the fact that there are financial issues involved in the sport and the big conferences generate that money.

In all honesty maybe the WAC shouldn't be playing along with teams in the Big 12 and SEC.

I think you can equate it to an individual school's sports program :

Alabama Football is to San Jose St Football as Notre Dame Football is to Notre Dame Volleyball

Sure they are under the same umbrella but do they generate not only the money but the fan base ?

There are rules in place to make sure that all FBS schools are treated fairly and have an even shot but that doesn't mean they are comparable or ever will be.

Again, if they are such a pushover, then what is everyone afraid of?

All I'm saying is that people like to judge a team by their opponents, and make these broad generalizations about each conference, and everyone seems to be comfortable with the idea that football should be a sport where the winners (or title contenders) are voted on, and not decided on the field.

Since the BCS started, they've allowed a total of 3 teams (compared to 81 from BCS conferences, or Notre Dame) from "mid-major" conferences into BCS games, and they are 2 - 1 in those games.

And most every year the Big East champ is knocked because "they don't play anyone", yet they are 6 - 4 in BCS games.

Same with the PAC 10. Everyone loves to knock the level of competition in that conference, yet their rep's are 8 - 4 in BCS games.

The Big 12? 6 - 8 in BCS games.

The ACC? 1 - 9 in BCS games.

Notre Dame is 0 - 3.

I realize that this is over a ten year span, but it points out the fact that you can't judge how a conference representative will perform simply based on which conference they came from.

I understand that under the current system of only TWO teams being able to compete for the title, that it might unnerve some people if one of those two teams was from a "mid-major", or got in simply because they were undefeated. (See BYU 1984)

But if we're talking playoffs... why is everyone afraid of letting these teams in?

If they're truly a fraud, they'll be bounced out in the first round, and then we'll know.

I'll just never be convinced that 12 or 13 games, where most of the top contenders never play each other head to head... is enough for a panel of "experts" to VOTE on who they THINK are the two best teams.

Football championships should be decided on a football field.

JimBeam

11-14-2008, 12:45 PM

Big East champ is knocked because "they don't play anyone", yet they are 6 - 4 in BCS games

Yeah but never once has that BCS game been against a top #1 or #2 team unless you go back to when Miami was in the Big East.

They are usually playing one of the at large teams or the representative from the conference that didn't make the BCS title game ( the runner-up ).

SP1!

11-14-2008, 01:19 PM

Trying this again. Just realized I had Florida and Georgia possibly meeting again in the second round...

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/55/l_e5a0f660e05b40e8b1063c87f3822cf7.jpg

This way, no chance of teams from the same conference meeting unless both made it to the semi-finals or finals.

There is no way ball st, troy, or boise deserve to be there automatically, there would have to be a play in game since those teams play in conferences that are barely above I-AA teams.

I will never believe any team like that should get in, this isnt basket ball where one player can get a crappy team to the elite 8 or final 4.

And again, it has nothing to do with teams being scared of them but I would rather see a team that has a chance to win a couple games not just some crappy mid level team that may win one game, I would much rather see someone like south carolina in there or even a california to wreck havoc

Snoogans

11-14-2008, 05:10 PM

somebody at work today tried to actually convince me Mike Teel should get drafted cause he can make a good NFL QB

WHAT???????

I was in Franklin Lakes at the time, which is next to Oakland, so it is a possibility that this guy was like Teel's dad or something. HAD TO BE

razorboy

11-14-2008, 05:22 PM

KingKill

11-14-2008, 07:49 PM

They should use the top sixteen teams after game 12 plus Conf. Championships

KingKill

11-14-2008, 09:02 PM

OZZIE

You left the SEC record in BCS games out they are 11-4 and the reason most of the other teams have a lost so many games.

I cannt be a total homer USC has done well too.

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 07:30 AM

I hope Navy beats the shit out of ND today. Rush for 300 yards

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 07:56 AM

NICE HERBSTREET!!!!

FUCK ND, GO NAVY

And lets go Rutgers

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 11:05 AM

you all dissappoint me.

Rutgers hasnt done that yet today, however. Big win. 4 in a row and Army and Looaville stand in the way of a 7-5 season which would be HUGE given the situation.

sailor

11-15-2008, 11:19 AM

this navy game's gettin' crazy.

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 11:24 AM

Even if ND pulls this off, they fuckin suck. Get your damn heads in the game. Charlie Weis is a fat bum

cougarjake13

11-15-2008, 11:25 AM

anyway navy pulls this off ??

i fucking hope so

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 11:26 AM

COOOOOOOOOOOOOME ON BABYYYYYYYYYYYYY

oh man this would FUCKIN RULE

cougarjake13

11-15-2008, 11:27 AM

do you believe in miracles !!!!

sailor

11-15-2008, 11:27 AM

do you believe in miracles !!!!

other than the font, i was gonna type the same thing.

disneyspy

11-15-2008, 11:29 AM

c'mon navy

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 11:30 AM

this QB sucks

Epschtein

11-15-2008, 11:30 AM

that last onside kick was probably the most perfect one i have seen, awesome finish, hopefully they can pull it off.

cougarjake13

11-15-2008, 11:31 AM

if i remember correctly they gave navy back a timeout cause of a booth review

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 11:33 AM

didnt it look like some holding on that play?

cougarjake13

11-15-2008, 11:33 AM

why the fuck does the navy qb roll back out of the snap as a lefty when he throws righty ??

disneyspy

11-15-2008, 11:34 AM

fuck

sailor

11-15-2008, 11:34 AM

how do you take a sack there? idiot.

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 11:34 AM

ND still blows. Weis should be fired tomorrow. Pull an Al Davis, fire him for cause, and say fuck his buy out

Epschtein

11-15-2008, 01:43 PM

florida is just destroying south carolina, every time they score they show steve spurrier just shaking his head like he doesnt know what the fuck is going on hehe.

that second interception was just an awful call by the QB, even if it didnt get tipped it was still going to be picked i think, never should have thrown it.

ozzie

11-15-2008, 02:58 PM

There is no way ball st, troy, or boise deserve to be there automatically, there would have to be a play in game since those teams play in conferences that are barely above I-AA teams.

I will never believe any team like that should get in, this isnt basket ball where one player can get a crappy team to the elite 8 or final 4.

And again, it has nothing to do with teams being scared of them but I would rather see a team that has a chance to win a couple games not just some crappy mid level team that may win one game, I would much rather see someone like south carolina in there or even a california to wreck havoc

Yeah... South Carolina is MUCH more deserving. Great showing today against the Gaytors. I'm sure no mid-major could have given the Gaytors as good a game as the Cocks just pulled off.

And your Golden Bears are about to lose on the road at Oregon State.

Whatever guys, I get it. You KNOW who the best teams are, and which "deserve" a chance to play, and who doesn't.

Listening to you evaluate or compare teams that will never have a chance to play against each other in this fucked up system, is like listening to old men debate if Ali could have beaten Marciano.

You have no common opponents to compare them to, only your own expert analysis based on film you've seen on them.

I give up.

And does ANYONE want to win the ACC? Or are they going to hand it to Florida State and Miami by default?

Wake loses at NC State, and now North Carolina is trailing Maryland. Nope, scratch that... interception! It's over.

Terps get the Noles at home next week, and control their own destiny.

Or should we just VOTE on who will win that game instead of actually letting them play it out on the field?

Maryland lost to Middle Tennessee earlier this year... so surely they don't "deserve" to have a chance to play for the ACC crown... right?

Oops... interception returned for TD. California loses.

Epschtein

11-15-2008, 05:04 PM

that helmet to helmet call on BC was horseshit, the guy with the ball initiated the contact.

probably didnt matter much tho.

i think this is only the second time i have seen them this year, they look good so far, i gotta go see who their 3 losses were against.

*edit* they lost close games to two average ACC teams and got spanked by north carolina.

and holy shit, i turned off the florida game so i didnt know the final, 56-6, that is embarassing.

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 05:11 PM

on versus, stanford and USC are tied at 17

ozzie

11-15-2008, 05:17 PM

There is no way ball st, troy, or boise deserve to be there automatically, there would have to be a play in game since those teams play in conferences that are barely above I-AA teams.

With 8 mins left in the 2nd Qtr:

Troy 17 - LSU 3

I'm not saying it will hold up, but stop saying that these "mid-majors" can NOT compete.

Go Trojans! (Troy that is... fuck USC. Go Stanford!)

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 05:19 PM

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 05:25 PM

24-3 troy

Bossanova

11-15-2008, 05:26 PM

24-3 troy

Such a great game

ozzie

11-15-2008, 05:28 PM

agreed agreed agreed agreed and fuck bama

...right in their cocky crimson ass.

Go State!

Update... Troy 23 - LSU 3. This is no fluke gentlemen. These guys can play.

Bossanova

11-15-2008, 05:29 PM

Even better. If this holds up, that score is going to hurt Florida

SP1!

11-15-2008, 06:07 PM

With 8 mins left in the 2nd Qtr:

Troy 17 - LSU 3

I'm not saying it will hold up, but stop saying that these "mid-majors" can NOT compete.

Go Trojans! (Troy that is... fuck USC. Go Stanford!)

Its against LSU, I would put them barely above auburn and in no way deserving of the top 25 ranking they have or did you completely fucking miss the 50 pts put up against them in consecutive weeks by UF and UGA? Troy is not that good, LSU is that bad and is showing they didnt deserve to be ranked anywhere near where they started the season so you point still means shit since its still not the top of the talent levels against those teams the closest they came was losing to an over rated OSU by 18 and getting their asses handed to them by OK State.

There are no mid majors that deserve to be in a playoff at all. Just because they catch a team that didnt deserve their ranking or didnt deserve to be in a BCS game doesnt mean shit, hawaii last year is what will happen to the mid majors who people think they belong.

Its fucking bullshit quit trying to argue they deserve even a slight shot at being in the game. Get over it they dont belong

TheGameHHH

11-15-2008, 06:45 PM

Damn yo, I fuckin love the Seminoles uni's tongiht

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 06:54 PM

Its against LSU, I would put them barely above auburn and in no way deserving of the top 25 ranking they have or did you completely fucking miss the 50 pts put up against them in consecutive weeks by UF and UGA? Troy is not that good, LSU is that bad and is showing they didnt deserve to be ranked anywhere near where they started the season so you point still means shit since its still not the top of the talent levels against those teams the closest they came was losing to an over rated OSU by 18 and getting their asses handed to them by OK State.

There are no mid majors that deserve to be in a playoff at all. Just because they catch a team that didnt deserve their ranking or didnt deserve to be in a BCS game doesnt mean shit, hawaii last year is what will happen to the mid majors who people think they belong.

Its fucking bullshit quit trying to argue they deserve even a slight shot at being in the game. Get over it they dont belong

yea after reading this, i no longer take anything you say about football with any weight.

No mid major ever deserves to be in a playoff? If you go undefeated, you deserve a shot. PERIOD. Its so hard to go undefeated that you are good if you do. You might not be a powerhouse, but you are GOOD if you do

Bossanova

11-15-2008, 06:58 PM

ozzie

11-15-2008, 07:01 PM

Its against LSU, I would put them barely above auburn and in no way deserving of the top 25 ranking they have or did you completely fucking miss the 50 pts put up against them in consecutive weeks by UF and UGA? Troy is not that good, LSU is that bad and is showing they didnt deserve to be ranked anywhere near where they started the season so you point still means shit since its still not the top of the talent levels against those teams the closest they came was losing to an over rated OSU by 18 and getting their asses handed to them by OK State.

There are no mid majors that deserve to be in a playoff at all. Just because they catch a team that didnt deserve their ranking or didnt deserve to be in a BCS game doesnt mean shit, hawaii last year is what will happen to the mid majors who people think they belong.

Its fucking bullshit quit trying to argue they deserve even a slight shot at being in the game. Get over it they dont belong

Hawaii's loss made the WAC 1 - 1 in BCS games. Or had you already forgotten Boise State? And Utah won their only BCS appearance in '04.

Man, nothing is good enough for some of you. One minute you claim that none of these teams could compete against a ranked BCS team, then when they are, you make excuses for why that ranked BCS team doesn't count.

Yeah, you're probably right. Just like you were right about South Carolina and California's ability to "wreck" havoc if they got in.

Face it. You don't know how any given team will perform in a certain game any more than anyone else who's vote actually count, does.

That's why they actually play the games. That is why championships should be decided on the field, and not decided by someone's "opinion" of who is worthy.

Snoogans

11-15-2008, 07:02 PM

Hawaii's loss made the WAC 1 - 1 in BCS games. Or had you already forgotten Boise State? And Utah won their only BCS appearance in '04.

Man, nothing is good enough for some of you. One minute you claim that none of these teams could compete against a ranked BCS team, then when they are, you make excuses for why that ranked BCS team doesn't count.

Yeah, you're probably right. Just like you were right about South Carolina and California's ability to "wreck" havoc if they got in.

Face it. You don't know how any given team will perform in a certain game any more than anyone else who's vote actually count, does.

That's why they actually play the games. That is why championships should be decided on the field, and not decided by someone's "opinion" of who is worthy.

the national champion should be determined the same way the first one ever was determined.

Let Rutgers play Princeton and then call themselves national champions

please

SP1!

11-16-2008, 06:38 AM

yea after reading this, i no longer take anything you say about football with any weight.

No mid major ever deserves to be in a playoff? If you go undefeated, you deserve a shot. PERIOD. Its so hard to go undefeated that you are good if you do. You might not be a powerhouse, but you are GOOD if you do
I will take them seriously if they had to deal with the beating other conferences take on a weekly basis, until then they can keep dreaming, there may be an argument if their schedule warrants it but 9 times out of 10 there is no reason for them being there and just gives us a shitty game. But then I said the same thing about illinois last year and their crappy record.

Exatly, and fuck that Hawaii argument. They wont always win a bowl game. Boise St beat Oklahoma in a great game. They can def compete and should get the chance with a great record
No hawaii is the norm, boise was a fluke and was given to Ok because they were the weakest of the BCS teams that year, they didnt deserve to be there and only got there because they had to have one from the big 12. It was another argument that you shouldnt get to go if you dont deserve, I have never been a big fan of automatic bids for conference champions in BCS bowls. The big east is just the most glaring example but this was the year the big 12 showed they didnt deserve a bid, fuck Ok was the highest ranked team for them at 11, it was a really bad year for their conference and if that happens then I think there should be provisions to keep them out. This year we could kick two conferences out, I dont think the big east or the ACC deserve a BCS game at all, of course now that I say that they will get in and win.

Hawaii's loss made the WAC 1 - 1 in BCS games. Or had you already forgotten Boise State? And Utah won their only BCS appearance in '04.

Man, nothing is good enough for some of you. One minute you claim that none of these teams could compete against a ranked BCS team, then when they are, you make excuses for why that ranked BCS team doesn't count.

Yeah, you're probably right. Just like you were right about South Carolina and California's ability to "wreck" havoc if they got in.

Face it. You don't know how any given team will perform in a certain game any more than anyone else who's vote actually count, does.

That's why they actually play the games. That is why championships should be decided on the field, and not decided by someone's "opinion" of who is worthy.
Again see the boise argument above, do you honestly believe that Ok team would have been even that close to any of the top 10? They would have gotten blown out by any of the other top 10 but boise had to rely on a gimmick play to win that game.

But I will give you the fact that you never know how a team will perform and there is always a chance people will take them lightly, still 9 times out of 10 that team gets stomped against a real team.

I said it before, you can let 1, maybe 2 in but they should have a play-in game to decide who gets in and who doesnt, make it early bowl games it would increase the viewership for those crap bowl games we ignore in mid-december.

ozzie

11-16-2008, 05:21 PM

Your new BCS Standings:

1 Alabama
2 Texas Tech
3 Texas
4 Florida
5 Oklahoma
6 USC
7 Utah - Comp Rank #4
8 Penn State
9 Boise State
10 Ohio State
11 Georgia
12 Oklahoma State
13 Missouri
14 BYU
15 Michigan State
16 TCU
17 Ball State
18 LSU
19 Cincinnati
20 Pitt
21 Oregon State
22 North Carolina
23 Miami
24 Oregon
25 Maryland

UGA drops a spot after barely surviving at AU. BYU moves UP three spots, and TCU moves up 2.

Ball State DROPS three spots? LSU moves UP two spots? Yeah, this system is great.

Oregon State, Miami, Oregon and Maryland move IN.

South Carolina, Wake Forest, Tulsa and Florida State... OUT.

And don't worry... according to the BCS rules, they only HAVE to take ONE "non-BCS conf school" into a BCS game in this perfect elitist, exclusionary system.

Cincinnati is your highest ranking Big East team, and Miami is the highest ranking ACC team... both from conferences with auto-BCS bids.

Oregon State still controls their own destiny to win the PAC 10 and get the Rose Bowl bid if they win out. Go Beavers!!!

South Florida (1-4 in Big East play) is already Bowl Eligible... but Rutgers, who beat them 49 - 16 at THEIR PLACE, is not... yet. Army is the next victim.

Maybe it El Mudo's influence, but I'll be rooting for the Terps next week against FSU, and to take the Atlantic...

...and pulling out my Rocky Calumus jersey and rooting for OU to screw things up for the Big 12 and the BCS by beating Texas Tech next Saturday, and to create a three way tie in the Big 12 South.

KingKill

11-16-2008, 06:01 PM

The BCS blah
I look forward to Mid Majors having thier dreams shattered and ass handed to them again this year.
The Boise win was a fluke its not going to happen every year or 10 years

El Mudo

11-17-2008, 04:08 AM

Maybe it El Mudo's influence, but I'll be rooting for the Terps next week against FSU, and to take the Atlantic.

Still just taking it one week at a time :smoke: I was in Pittsburgh with my chick all weekend, so I missed the game completely

i remember we were in this same spot a few years ago and pooped against Wake

KingKill

11-17-2008, 08:00 AM

Bowden is a class act one of the few in the game and he gave UGA the best coach they have had since Vince Dooley.
I will alway go FSU unless they play an SEC team.

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 08:15 AM

South Carolina got destroyed by possibly the best team in the country* and you're using that as the argument that a non-BCS conference school would have played better against them ?

*UF would've been only the 2nd team in the history of the SEC to have won 6 consecutive conferences games by 30+ points if not for a late score by Vandy ( per somewhere on ESPN ).

Only other team to do that was the 1996 UF team.

For 100 years people have always had to debate whether the SEC, Big 10, PAC10, etc ... is the better conference and despite a handful of head to head matchups you never really know.

Why now all of a sudden do we have to answer the question for the non-BCS schools ?

Think what you want but there's no way Boise St could play a schedule like any BCS school and remain undefeated.

To SP1's point when they do win games against BCS teams it's more than exception than the rule.

Last year's Hawaii team was the best of the non-BCS schools yet still had to hold on and rally to beat a terrible Washitngton team and then was man handled by the statistically 3rd place team from the SEC.

The bowl games may be a business but they're also supposed to be entertaining and nobody wants to see USC/UGA/Texas Tech roll up 60 points on a Utah or a Boise St.

ozzie

11-17-2008, 09:37 AM

South Carolina got destroyed by possibly the best team in the country* and you're using that as the argument that a non-BCS conference school would have played better against them ?

His point was that South Carolina or California could "wreck havoc" if they got into a playoff, and were more deserving to get in than a non-BCS conf school. Based on what? I have no idea. (SC was 0 - 3 vs. ranked teams before the UF game)

This is the problem. Some people judge a teams worth by their record or the conference they play in. Luckily, in this case, they had to actually play Florida, and we found whether they were "worthy" or not. (Now 0 - 4)

And California has had their chances on the field against USC and Oregon State.

You can all have your "opinions" on what you "think" would happen. My "opinion" is that I would rather give them a chance and find out.

Every BCS conference school has a legitamate shot at the title at the beginning of every year by playing their conference opponents. Teams rise and fall every year. No one has to "vote" or give their "opinion" of who the best in any conference is, and no matter what you might "think" about their conference, the winner gets a BCS game, and a chance to prove it on the field.

For lack of a better term, there is a "playoff" within each conference already. So it comes down to which conferences are deemed "worthy" of their champ having a shot.

You might not have "thought" that West Virginia was "worthy" of a BCS game, or had a chance of beating Oklahoma last year after losing their last game to Pitt, but they were given their chance on the field, and they destroyed them.

If that had been a first round playoff game instead of a one-shot consolation bowl, who knows how far that West Virginia team could have gone.

Non-BCS conf schools have only had 3 appearances in BCS games, and they are 2 - 1.

No one is saying that every non-BCS conf would produce a true contender every year... just like every BCS conference doesn't produce a contender every year... but the BCS has created a system in which we will never know for sure, and some of you are fine with that. Based on what?

Are you saying that only BCS conference schools are allowed to recruit top players, or get top coaches? The BCS conf schools can't get them all, and miss on kids every year.

The ACC is 1 - 9 in BCS games. Should the BCS kick them out? And buck them down into the "non-BCS conference" catagory? And if they did, and the following year Florida State runs the table, should they have to argue their way into having a shot? Would their schedule be scritinized the way all other non-BCS teams are?

I'll give you that Hawaii was overmatched last year. Both the computer and human polls backed that up even before the bowl game, and Georgia was hardly the "third best in the SEC". They lost a game to Tennessee in the middle of the season that kept them from going to Atlanta, and never played LSU to find out who was better. It could have easily been UGA playing OSU for the title. But, they only have themselves to blame. They had their shot at Tennessee heads up, and lost.

But we'll never know how good that 2004 Utah team was (coached by the same Urban Meyer who is now considered one of the best in the nation). All they gave them was a consolation prize of beating the shit out of Pitt. You don't "know" how they would have done against USC, Oklahoma or Auburn that year, and we'll never know for sure.

Same for this year. Chances are that Utah will be given a consolation BCS game, and Boise and Ball State will get a lesser bowl. And even if one or all of them blows out their opponent, people will find a reason to downplay the results, just like SP1 tried to do with Troy last Saturday. "Yeah, but that's not a #1 team"... or their opponent was "overrated".

Frankly I'm tired of hearing what people "think", or what they think that they "know" would happen in any game. I'd rather see a system that wasn't reliant on anyone's "opinion", and where everyone had a shot.

And if there are first round blow outs (like there are often in the Basketball tournament), so what? By the next week, you're getting the "entertaining" match ups that "everyone wants to see".

cougarjake13

11-17-2008, 09:38 AM

wow thats just too much to read

KingKill

11-17-2008, 10:01 AM

agreed made it thru 4 lines

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 10:10 AM

We can all agree that we're each entitled to our opinion and that no matter what system is used there will always be questions.

That's what makes college football so entertaining and makes fans of it so passionate.

Here's another take on why I don't think the non-BCS schools are as qualified to play for a national title w/out playing the BCS schools in non-conferences regular season games.

The BCS conference schools will all play at least 1 or 2 ranked teams ( more than likely Top 10 ) in conference every year while the non-BCS schools will probably not play any ranked conference teams.

So while they may get away w/ a big non-conference win ( see Utah over Oregon St ) their wins against conference opponents aren't worth much ( San Diego St and Wyoming ) nor are some of their other non-conference wins ( Weber St ).

Now you could say wins against Miss St/Iowa St/Wash St aren't much either but the difference is those 3 teams have also played the previously mentioned ranked teams.

Weber St and San Diego St ( despite the ND game ) on the other hand have not played any ranked teams other than Utah.

toolshed

11-17-2008, 10:24 AM

Bowden is a class act one of the few in the game and he gave UGA the best coach they have had since Vince Dooley.
I will alway go FSU unless they play an SEC team.

Everybody loves Bobby, but he is on his way out. Between the 7-6 seasons and the off-field problems...look for the boosters and AD to clean house in the coaching staff sometime soon. Even Mickey Andrews, one of the most successful defensive coordinators in the game, is getting a lot of heat in the last few years. FSU can only claim a "rebuilding season" for so long, and we are working on about 7 years of rebuilding at this point.

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 10:56 AM

I doubt Bowden's going anywhere as long as Paterno's still coaching.

I believe at this point both of them are stiil just figure heads ( or is it figureheads ).

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 11:10 AM

toolshed

11-17-2008, 11:32 AM

I doubt Bowden's going anywhere as long as Paterno's still coaching.

I believe at this point both of them are stiil just figure heads ( or is it figureheads ).

If Bowden doesn't go in 2011, Jimbo gets a mult-million dollar payout. Bowden already makes 2.5 million a year. I just don't know if they are willing to extend Bobby again AND pay Jimbo out. Even for the winningest coach moniker. Unless Paterno retires next year or 2010, I see Bobby (and Mickey Andrews and Chuck Amato) gone in 2011.

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 11:37 AM

cougarjake13

11-17-2008, 11:52 AM

If Bowden doesn't go in 2011, Jimbo gets a mult-million dollar payout. Bowden already makes 2.5 million a year. I just don't know if they are willing to extend Bobby again AND pay Jimbo out. Even for the winningest coach moniker. Unless Paterno retires next year or 2010, I see Bobby (and Mickey Andrews and Chuck Amato) gone in 2011.

wow beamer is the only other active guy on the list

Rank Coach Wins
1 x-Bobby Bowden 373
2 x-Joe Paterno 372
3 Paul "Bear" Bryant 323
4 Pop Warner 319
5 Amos Alonzo Stagg 314
6 LaVell Edwards 256
7 Tom Osborne 255
8 Lou Holtz 249
9 Woody Hayes 238
10 Bo Schembechler 234
11 Hayden Fry 232
12 x-Frank Beamer 208
13 Jess Neely 207
14 Warren Woodson 203
15 Don Nehlen 202
16 (tie) Vince Dooley 201
16 (tie) Eddie Anderson 201
19 Jim Sweeney 200

Freakshow

11-17-2008, 11:59 AM

Tressel should be appearing on that list soon. Once he hits 100 IA games his Youngstown State wins start counting.

toolshed

11-17-2008, 12:02 PM

wow beamer is the only other active guy on the list

Yeah, love them or hate them, you have to respect Bowden and Paterno for the longevity and success. If Bowden had kept up the caliber of the late 90's teams, he would have been untouchable by now. Too many seasons just over .500 lately...

cougarjake13

11-17-2008, 12:04 PM

Tressel should be appearing on that list soon. Once he hits 100 IA games his Youngstown State wins start counting.

shit yeh

just googled him and he has 217 total wins

that catapaults him up the list real quick

toolshed

11-17-2008, 12:04 PM

[QUOTE=JimBeam;1960215]

This makes you realize that disagreeing on a message board is much safer.

QUOTE]

:lol:

They should have settled their differences on Mafialife.

Freakshow

11-17-2008, 12:04 PM

Just looked it up, this past Saturday's game was Tressel's 100th at Ohio State. He now has 217 wins and is ahead of Beemer...

toolshed

11-17-2008, 12:05 PM

shit yeh

just googled him and he has 217 total wins

that catapaults him up the list real quick

Wow, had no idea. He is young enough to make a real run at the title too. How many seasons does Ohio State go without 9 or 10 wins?

ozzie

11-17-2008, 12:13 PM

Not sure if this was posted already.

This makes you realize that disagreeing on a message board is much safer.

Bond set for an LSU fan accused of killing two Alabama fans

http://www.wkrg.com/local/article/bond_set_in_football_feud_murders/20793/

Great... it's now a national story? This is from our local CBS affiliate. Fucking embarrassing.

Like the rest of the country doesn't think we're a bunch of inbred hillbillies down here already.

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 12:16 PM

How many seasons does Ohio State go without 9 or 10 wins?

There was a time, not so long ago, when Notre Dame, FSU and Penn St could say the same thing.

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 12:19 PM

Great... it's now a national story? This is from our local CBS affiliate. Fucking embarrassing.

Like the rest of the country doesn't think we're a bunch of inbred hillbillies down here already.

It's not just the south and college football.

There was a story earlier this year about a Yankee fan running over a Red Sox fan ( or vice versa ).

The best line in the article about the LSU/Alabama shooting is " .... alcohol may have been involved ".

Yeah you think.

toolshed

11-17-2008, 12:19 PM

There was a time, not so long ago, when Notre Dame, FSU and Penn St could say the same thing.

As an FSU alum, I have a hazy recollection of that time...getting harder to remember though.

Freakshow

11-17-2008, 12:21 PM

There was a time, not so long ago, when Notre Dame, FSU and Penn St could say the same thing.

Penn state has had 4 consecutive 9 win seasons, if you include this year.

toolshed

11-17-2008, 12:21 PM

It's not just the south and college football.

There was a story earlier this year about a Yankee fan running over a Red Sox fan ( or vice versa ).

The best line in the article about the LSU/Alabama shooting is " .... alcohol may have been involved ".

Yeah you think.

As with the rest of the season, the LSU fan let the two Bama fans run 450 yards on him before eventually stopping them.

Freakshow

11-17-2008, 12:53 PM

It's a crime Shonn Greene isn't getting any Heisman notice. He's actually the best running back in the 'running back conference.' He was just huge in the Penn State upset. And he's averaging more per carry than Moreno, way more than Ringer. And after 200 yards last week, he's the nation's leading rusher.

And he's from NJ, Snoogans...

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 12:54 PM

Penn state has had 4 consecutive 9 win seasons, if you include this year.

Preceded by a 3-9 and 4-7 season which followed a 9-4 season.

Not exactly a picture of consistency.

cougarjake13

11-17-2008, 01:02 PM

Wow, had no idea. He is young enough to make a real run at the title too. How many seasons does Ohio State go without 9 or 10 wins?

here's his record at ohio state

2001 Ohio State 7-5
2002 Ohio State 14-0
2003 Ohio State 11-2
2004 Ohio State 8-4
2005 Ohio State 10-2
2006 Ohio State 12-1
2007 Ohio State 11-2
2008 Ohio State 9-2

Ohio State: 82-18

ozzie

11-17-2008, 01:41 PM

Conference titles shouldn't affect title-game eligibility

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=roadtobcs/0805

I completely disagree with his logic.

Youy're not worthy of being the national champion if you are, at the very least, the 3rd best team in your conference.

Just because you may be one of the most talented teams in the country you don't deserve to get consideration if you lost a game that's a stepping stone to a championship.

If this logic was used in baseball the Yankees and Red Sox would play in the World Series every year against the Mets and Dodgers.

In football a few years ago it would be the Colts and Patriots regardless of what other teams did to beat them along the way.

If the scenario he puts forth with Missouri playing against a two-loss Florida team came true, while unlikely, it would help show the need for a playoff... so of course I'll be rooting for this, and total CHAOS at the end of the year.

But, sadly, we had a similar situation last year after the final week when both #1 and #2 lost, and they resolved this by moving the two highest ranked conference champs (#7 LSU and #3 Ohio State) into the #1 and #2 spots over #5 Georgia (who didn't play for their conf title), #4 Kansas (who didn't play for the Big 12), and #6 Va Tech (who won the ACC, but lost to LSU heads-up earlier in the year).

But even if everything he said happened, the voters would be pressured to vote Florida and Missouri #1 and #2, and they would point to this game again with pride showing how "the system works! See, #1 is playing #2. Horray"... just like last year.

I totally agree that in the current system, where only 2 teams have a chance to play, that you should have to win your conference to become eligible. No question.

And in an 8 team playoff field, it would be hard to justify a second or third place team getting in over a conference winner.

Only in a 16 team field, could I see a few second or third place "at large" teams getting in.

This year's Big 12 South is a good example of why others in the same conf might be deserving. They've already said that they would break a three way tie by naming the "team with the highest BCS ranking" as the Big 12 South champ... which isn't exactly fair to the other two. It's a popularity contest at that point.

Same for the Big 10. They don't play every other team, and have no conference champ game, so sometimes theirs comes down to some bullshit tie-breaker as well.

And going back to last year, you would have had to consider Georgia in a playoff field as well. Yes, they lost to Tennessee, so they couldn't play for the SEC title, but they never played LSU head-up, so it would be hard to argue who was the more deserving of those two. (Each had two conference losses)

PhilDeez

11-17-2008, 02:36 PM

Just looked it up, this past Saturday's game was Tressel's 100th at Ohio State. He now has 217 wins and is ahead of Beemer...

Why would I-AA wins not count the entire time. Either count them or don't, waiting until 100 I-A wins seems ridiculous.

Snoogans

11-17-2008, 03:11 PM

Bowden is a class act one of the few in the game and he gave UGA the best coach they have had since Vince Dooley.
I will alway go FSU unless they play an SEC team.

Bowden is a douche. He recruits thugs and doesnt give a shit about academics and thats why all these FSU kids get arrested or get caught cheating or stealing clothes like peter warrick and coles. FUCK FSU, and FUCK Bowden.

Snoogans

11-17-2008, 03:15 PM

toolshed

11-17-2008, 04:05 PM

Bowden is a douche. He recruits thugs and doesnt give a shit about academics and thats why all these FSU kids get arrested or get caught cheating or stealing clothes like peter warrick and coles. FUCK FSU, and FUCK Bowden.

Please....I'm tired of this BS being thrown at FSU lately. The Seminoles are the only program that have had a kid caught cheating or get into trouble? They also recruited Myron Rolle, a possible Rhodes scholar.

Every team in the NCAA has problems with some punks at some point. The higher the profile the team, the more the news jumps on it. So you hear about it when FSU or Miami have a problem, but you don't hear about it when Western Carolina has one. The Gators have had something like 40 kids arrested over the last 10 seasons for betting on games to brandishing an AK47, but everyone seems to love them now because their quarterback doubles as a missionary.

Snoogans

11-17-2008, 04:11 PM

Please....I'm tired of this BS being thrown at FSU lately. The Seminoles are the only program that have had a kid caught cheating or get into trouble? They also recruited Myron Rolle, a possible Rhodes scholar.

Every team in the NCAA has problems with some punks at some point. The higher the profile the team, the more the news jumps on it. So you hear about it when FSU or Miami have a problem, but you don't hear about it when Western Carolina has one. The Gators have had something like 40 kids arrested over the last 10 seasons for betting on games to brandishing an AK47, but everyone seems to love them now because their quarterback doubles as a missionary.

how bout 35 of the kids on the team getting caught cheating at once? I havent heard that happening anywhere else, and that CANT go on without Bowden knowing. Open your eyes and wake up. He is a scumbag.

toolshed

11-17-2008, 05:35 PM

how bout 35 of the kids on the team getting caught cheating at once? I havent heard that happening anywhere else, and that CANT go on without Bowden knowing. Open your eyes and wake up. He is a scumbag.

It was 35 student athletes from all the sports programs, and despite all the allegations, less than half were football players, and less than half of those had played more than a quarter of football. FSU preempted the NCAA and suspended kids before the whole report even came out just to avoid seeming like they were letting the athletes off easy. And you think that Bowden polices the elective music history courses of the whole team? He has certainly lost a step as a coach, but the one thing that is consistently said about him by people who work with him and were coached by him is that he tried to make them better people as well as players. He's got 60 18-22 year old kids coming through the team every year, puts a good percentage of them in the NFL, especially ones who go on to have great reputations like Warrick Dunn and Derrick Brooks, but a handful of shitheads over 30 years of coaching and he is a scumbag?

I just googled Rutgers football arrests, and got several pages of reports of Knights "improprieties" as well. Does that make your team and your coach scumbags?

Tired of this shit by teams and fans that are pissed that they get whipped every year.

Freakshow

11-17-2008, 05:53 PM

Why would I-AA wins not count the entire time. Either count them or don't, waiting until 100 I-A wins seems ridiculous.

Probably to avoid some sort of shenangigans. There were a couple of guys with more wins at IAA schools like Eddie Robinson and Guigliardi (I don't think I spelled that right). Some school could do some pr bullshit and hire them for 1 game, and then claim their school has the all-time coaching leader or something annoying like that. I think the 100 games is just to make sure the coach establishes himself at IA before he can start counting those wins.

JimBeam

11-17-2008, 05:58 PM

Same for the Big 10. They don't play every other team, and have no conference champ game, so sometimes theirs comes down to some bullshit tie-breaker as well.

It's silly that the Big 10, with their 11 teams, only plays 8 conference games.

If they're not gonna drop 2 non-conference games, and play all 10 teams, then at least play 9 of the other 10 teams.

The tie breaker for the Big 12 South representative is ridiculous.

I find it hard to believe that they can't use something other than the BCS standings to decide who wins in a 3 way tie. I know it's the 5th layer but it should be a last resort.

I also agree that what happens at FSU is happening at a lot of schools.

Look at LSU w/ the Perilloux issues, Oklahoma and that QB that got booted, etc ...

And I doubt when Bowden, or any of these coaches, recruited these kids out of a reform school.

They might've been perfectly respectable kids before college and the freedom that goes w/ being on their own screwed them up.

Or they were pieces of shit to begin w/ and were just on their best behavior when they had the in home sit w/ the coach.

toolshed

11-17-2008, 06:13 PM

I also agree that what happens at FSU is happening at a lot of schools.

Look at LSU w/ the Perilloux issues, Oklahoma and that QB that got booted, etc ...

And I doubt when Bowden, or any of these coaches, recruited these kids out of a reform school.

They might've been perfectly respectable kids before college and the freedom that goes w/ being on their own screwed them up.

Or they were pieces of shit to begin w/ and were just on their best behavior when they had the in home sit w/ the coach.

Florida State has definitely had more wastes of sperm in the last 7 or 8 years than I have liked, and I hope they kick at least two of the ones that were in this fight off the team. Burt Reed is the fastest receiver we have, but he has been suspended 3 times in a month, and there is no excuse for that. But I just have a hard time believing that they are the poster children for collegiate corruption. And I think Bobby is a little too old and out of touch to adequately coach the players anymore, and there is a lack of respect for him that is starting to show. But that makes him selfish for hanging on too long, not a shitty person.

SP1!

11-17-2008, 06:26 PM

His point was that South Carolina or California could "wreck havoc" if they got into a playoff, and were more deserving to get in than a non-BCS conf school. Based on what? I have no idea. (SC was 0 - 3 vs. ranked teams before the UF game)

This is the problem. Some people judge a teams worth by their record or the conference they play in. Luckily, in this case, they had to actually play Florida, and we found whether they were "worthy" or not. (Now 0 - 4)

And California has had their chances on the field against USC and Oregon State.

You can all have your "opinions" on what you "think" would happen. My "opinion" is that I would rather give them a chance and find out.

Every BCS conference school has a legitamate shot at the title at the beginning of every year by playing their conference opponents. Teams rise and fall every year. No one has to "vote" or give their "opinion" of who the best in any conference is, and no matter what you might "think" about their conference, the winner gets a BCS game, and a chance to prove it on the field.

For lack of a better term, there is a "playoff" within each conference already. So it comes down to which conferences are deemed "worthy" of their champ having a shot.

You might not have "thought" that West Virginia was "worthy" of a BCS game, or had a chance of beating Oklahoma last year after losing their last game to Pitt, but they were given their chance on the field, and they destroyed them.

If that had been a first round playoff game instead of a one-shot consolation bowl, who knows how far that West Virginia team could have gone.

Non-BCS conf schools have only had 3 appearances in BCS games, and they are 2 - 1.

No one is saying that every non-BCS conf would produce a true contender every year... just like every BCS conference doesn't produce a contender every year... but the BCS has created a system in which we will never know for sure, and some of you are fine with that. Based on what?

Are you saying that only BCS conference schools are allowed to recruit top players, or get top coaches? The BCS conf schools can't get them all, and miss on kids every year.

The ACC is 1 - 9 in BCS games. Should the BCS kick them out? And buck them down into the "non-BCS conference" catagory? And if they did, and the following year Florida State runs the table, should they have to argue their way into having a shot? Would their schedule be scritinized the way all other non-BCS teams are?

I'll give you that Hawaii was overmatched last year. Both the computer and human polls backed that up even before the bowl game, and Georgia was hardly the "third best in the SEC". They lost a game to Tennessee in the middle of the season that kept them from going to Atlanta, and never played LSU to find out who was better. It could have easily been UGA playing OSU for the title. But, they only have themselves to blame. They had their shot at Tennessee heads up, and lost.

But we'll never know how good that 2004 Utah team was (coached by the same Urban Meyer who is now considered one of the best in the nation). All they gave them was a consolation prize of beating the shit out of Pitt. You don't "know" how they would have done against USC, Oklahoma or Auburn that year, and we'll never know for sure.

Same for this year. Chances are that Utah will be given a consolation BCS game, and Boise and Ball State will get a lesser bowl. And even if one or all of them blows out their opponent, people will find a reason to downplay the results, just like SP1 tried to do with Troy last Saturday. "Yeah, but that's not a #1 team"... or their opponent was "overrated".

Frankly I'm tired of hearing what people "think", or what they think that they "know" would happen in any game. I'd rather see a system that wasn't reliant on anyone's "opinion", and where everyone had a shot.

And if there are first round blow outs (like there are often in the Basketball tournament), so what? By the next week, you're getting the "entertaining" match ups that "everyone wants to see".

Ok I didnt read most of this but your first sentence is completely wrong in its thought process, lets ask a serious question. Who do you think would scare a big name team in the first round? An SEC team with the top defense in the league(#3 in the nation) or some team who has really played nobodies the entire year? Yeah you will have a mid major win every once in a while but even if they do it doesnt mean much, especially since they pair them against teams they have a good shot at beating, one was a crappy Pitt team who didnt deserve to be there and the horrible OU team that only got there because they were the BCS winner and if the playoff that was proposed here were played they wouldnt be playing the soft ones they would get the hard teams like hawaii got last year. Last year was more indicative of what will happen to the mid majors, dont act like they have a real chance against the top teams in the land. Come back and argue when they beat a real top team not some scrub team who shouldnt have been there in the first place.

KingKill

11-17-2008, 07:42 PM

The problem with the mid level teams is the same one you run into with the less top level teams.
They dont have the deep bench and lack play makers.
I think its utter bullshit the teams like Utah and Boise are ranked higher than teams that have 1 and 2 loses that play schedules that are 10 times harder.
I would like to see these teams come east and play some teams
The WAC is Wack

I would like to change an earlier statemnet I want these mid level teams to play SEC, Big 12, and ACC teams in a bowl or better yet why dont they schedule them in season instead of the nobodies they play now.

Look at Boises Schedule no wonder they have won out.

8/30 Idaho State 1-0 (0-0) W 49-7
9/13 Bowling Green 2-0 (0-0) W 20-7
9/20 @ No. 17 Oregon 3-0 (0-0) W 37-32
10/01 Louisiana Tech 4-0 (1-0) W 38-3
10/11 @ Southern Miss 5-0 (1-0) W 24-7
10/17 Hawaii 6-0 (2-0) W 27-7
10/24 @ San Jose State 7-0 (3-0) W 33-16
11/01 @ New Mexico State 8-0 (4-0) W 49-0
11/08 Utah State 9-0 (5-0) W 49-14
11/15 @ Idaho 10-0 (6-0) W 45-10
11/22 @ Nevada 4:05 PM
11/28 Fresno State

Here is Utahs
8/30 @ Michigan 1-0 (0-0) W 25-23
9/06 UNLV 2-0 (1-0) W 42-21
9/13 @ Utah State 3-0 (1-0) W 58-10
9/20 @ Air Force 4-0 (2-0) W 30-23
9/27 Weber State 5-0 (2-0) W 37-21
10/02 Oregon State 6-0 (2-0) W 31-28
10/11 @ Wyoming 7-0 (3-0) W 40-7
10/18 Colorado State 8-0 (4-0) W 49-16
11/01 @ New Mexico 9-0 (5-0) W 13-10
11/06 No. 12 TCU 10-0 (6-0) W 13-10
11/15 @ San Diego State 11-0 (7-0) W 63-14
11/22 No. 14 Brigham Young

At least they played Michigan they kinda dont suck.

KnoxHarrington

11-17-2008, 07:46 PM

The problem with the mid level teams is the same one you run into with the less top level teams.
They dont have the deep bench and lack play makers.

Yeah, which is why I wouldn't want a playoff to be more than 16 teams, and preferably 8. You wouldn't get the upsets you get in the basketball tournament, because in basketball, if one or two players get hot, they can take over the game and carry their team on their backs. That doesn't happen in football.

So let's say that we went nuts and had a 64 team football tournament like in college basketball. My guess is that the Final Four would be all the #1 seeds, or maybe three #1's and a #2 or something. You wouldn't see a #8 or #9 sneak in there.

Freakshow

11-18-2008, 04:39 AM

Yeah, which is why I wouldn't want a playoff to be more than 16 teams, and preferably 8. You wouldn't get the upsets you get in the basketball tournament, because in basketball, if one or two players get hot, they can take over the game and carry their team on their backs. That doesn't happen in football.

So let's say that we went nuts and had a 64 team football tournament like in college basketball. My guess is that the Final Four would be all the #1 seeds, or maybe three #1's and a #2 or something. You wouldn't see a #8 or #9 sneak in there.

Except that a team like Mississippi would be an 8 or 9 seed (or higher) and they beat Florida this year. Iowa would be a 5 or 6 seed, they beat Penn State. Oregon State would be a 4 seed, and they beat USC. I think it would parallel the basketball tourney, where all four #1 seeds have never made the final four, yes?

ozzie

11-18-2008, 08:49 AM

Ok I didnt read most of this

Of course not.

Who do you think would scare a big name team in the first round? An SEC team with the top defense in the league(#3 in the nation) or some team who has really played nobodies the entire year?

That SEC team with the "top defense" had their shot, and blew it. In fact, they had a shot at 4 teams that were ranked (or still are), and lost them all. Why would you give them another one?

Yeah you will have a mid major win every once in a while but even if they do it doesnt mean much, especially since they pair them against teams they have a good shot at beating, one was a crappy Pitt team who didnt deserve to be there

Yep, and they beat them 35 - 7, in what would have amounted to a First round game had there been a playoff. I don't get how destroying a BCS conf champ proves that the 2004 Utah team wouldn't have been competitive in a tournament?

and the horrible OU team that only got there because they were the BCS winner

You mean the 2006 Big 12 Conf champ? That Oklahoma team? Yeah, horrible.

Last year was more indicative of what will happen to the mid majors.

Yeah, we should just take your word and not bother letting them play. Hell, why bother playing any of them? You already KNOW what's going to happen. Enjoy the millions you've made from betting on this totally predictable sport. Maybe you could take over Hippo's gimmick.

dont act like they have a real chance against the top teams in the land. Come back and argue when they beat a real top team not some scrub team who shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Don't worry. In this perfect elitist system where the "top teams in the land" get to choose their own non-conference opponents, they'll never get a shot, so it'll never happen. And even if they do beat an Oregon State this year heads up, or any other BCS conference team, you'll find a reason to show why that doesn't mean anything.

JimBeam

11-18-2008, 11:17 AM

cougarjake13

11-18-2008, 11:52 AM

espn and the bcs reach deal to air games from 2011-14

linky (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcs-tv&prov=ap&type=lgns)

SP1!

11-18-2008, 12:24 PM

Of course not.
You are the king of redundancy, you can speed read your posts and not lose any meaning.

That SEC team with the "top defense" had their shot, and blew it. In fact, they had a shot at 4 teams that were ranked (or still are), and lost them all. Why would you give them another one?
I can understand that but my question was who would you rather face if you were a top team? Personally I would rather face boise st, utah, or one of the non bcs schools if I was bama or TT. I sure as hell wouldnt want to face SC or california since they may actually show up for the entire game.

Yep, and they beat them 35 - 7, in what would have amounted to a First round game had there been a playoff. I don't get how destroying a BCS conf champ proves that the 2004 Utah team wouldn't have been competitive in a tournament?
No it wouldnt have, you have to remember that this pitt team had 4 loses and was really shitty but just got in cause the big east sucked that year(big surprise). Again, that team would have not come close to a real team but against a shit team they looked good but still only put 35 pts up against a crappy defense.

You mean the 2006 Big 12 Conf champ? That Oklahoma team? Yeah, horrible.
Yeah the same team that was stuck down in 11th in the BCS but got lucky that only one of their loses was in the big 12, they were a shit team and did not deserve to be there and got beat by an average team.

Yeah, we should just take your word and not bother letting them play. Hell, why bother playing any of them? You already KNOW what's going to happen. Enjoy the millions you've made from betting on this totally predictable sport. Maybe you could take over Hippo's gimmick.
You can usually gauge how a game will go just by watching the teams play, I would want mid majors to play harder talent before automatically getting in, their lines would not hold up under the beating most conferences take, its what killed UGA this year. Also yeah a few of those teams may be competitive but most will get rolled over like hawaiis line did last year, that is the norm not 2 teams who got lucky and played shit teams.

Don't worry. In this perfect elitist system where the "top teams in the land" get to choose their own non-conference opponents, they'll never get a shot, so it'll never happen. And even if they do beat an Oregon State this year heads up, or any other BCS conference team, you'll find a reason to show why that doesn't mean anything.

Look I said it will happen every once in a while but most of the time they get a beat down, its a fact, look at TCU this year, they were ranked really high but got smacked by a real team. You cant make an argument that mid majors deserve to get in by telling me they beat other mid to low levell pac 10 teams.

Oh and the system is not perfect I can see them getting a shot but to give them automatic bids just because they are undefeated is bullshit.

ozzie

11-18-2008, 01:02 PM

What's the deal with Texas fans ?

All I've heard all week is how it's an outrage if Oklahoma beats Texas Tech and gets to play in the Big 12 title game when Texas beat Oklahoma.

While I agree that the head to head match up should mean something and that the way to break the tie in the division is crazy but it seems like they want the voters to forget their loss to Texas Tech.

They are saying " Hey we beat Oklahoma " but not following that with " He we lost to Texas Tech ".

So I would guess that Texas fans can agree that regardless of whether or not Texas Tech beats Oklahoma, it is Texas Tech that should go to the Big 12 title game because in the head to head match up Texas lost that game.

What part of a "Three Way Tie" do they not understand?

The only "advantage" that I could see in the Longhorns favor is that their win would have come at a nuetral site, where technically (according to jersey selection) they were the visiting team, whereas the others would have won their games at home. But that's reaching.

I'm actually suprised that margin of victory, or PF and PA numbers aren't in there somewhere ahead of their BCS ranking.

Hell, a coin flip would be better than a popularity contest amongst the voters.

And in case you are wondering, here is the list of the 61 coaches who have a vote in the USA Today Coaches Poll:

ACC - CLEMSON - Tommy Bowden
ACC - FLORIDA STATE - Bobby Bowden
ACC - N. CAROLINA - Butch Davis
ACC - NC STATE - Tom O'Brien
ACC - VA TECH - Frank Beamer
ACC - WAKE FOREST - Jim Grobe

BIG 10 - ILLINOIS - Ron Zook
BIG 10 - INDIANA - Bill Lynch
BIG 10 - MICH STATE - Mark Dantonio
BIG 10 - MICHIGAN - Rich Rodriguez
BIG 10 - OHIO STATE - Jim Tressel
BIG 10 - PURDUE - Joe Tiller
BIG 10 - WISCONSIN - Bret Bielema

BIG 12 - BAYLOR - Art Briles
BIG 12 - COLORADO - Dan Hawkins
BIG 12 - IOWA STATE - Gene Chizik
BIG 12 - MISSOURI - Gary Pinkel
BIG 12 - NEBRASKA - Bo Pelini
BIG 12 - TEXAS - Mack Brown
BIG 12 - TEXAS TECH - Mike Leach

BIG EAST - CONNECTICUT - Randy Edsall
BIG EAST - LOUISVILLE - Steve Kragthorpe
BIG EAST - RUTGERS - Greg Schiano
BIG EAST - SOUTH FLORIDA - Jim Leavitt

IND - NOTRE DAME - Charlie Weis

M. WEST - NEW MEXICO - Rocky Long
M. WEST - TCU - Gary Patterson
M. WEST - UTAH - Kyle Whittingham
M. WEST - WYOMING - Joe Glenn

MAC - BUFFALO - Turner Gill
MAC - CENTRAL MICH - Butch Jones
MAC - E. MICHIGAN - Jeff Genyk
MAC - KENT STATE - Doug Martin
MAC - MIAMI (OH) - Shane Montgomery
MAC - OHIO - Frank Solich

PAC 10 - CALIFORNIA - Jeff Tedford
PAC 10 - OREGON - Mike Bellotti
PAC 10 - OREGON ST - Mike Riley
PAC 10 - UCLA - Rick Neuheisel
PAC 10 - WASHINGTON - Tyrone Willingham

SEC - AUBURN - Tommy Tuberville
SEC - FLORIDA - Urban Meyer
SEC - GEORGIA - Mark Richt
SEC - LSU - Les Miles
SEC - S. CAROLINA - Steve Spurrier
SEC - TENNESSEE - Phillip Fulmer

SUN BELT - FLA ATLANTIC - Howard Schnellenberger
SUN BELT - FLA INTERNAT'L - Mario Cristobal
SUN BELT - MID TENNESSEE - Rick Stockstill
SUN BELT - NORTH TEXAS - Todd Dodge

USA - CENTRAL FLA - George O'Leary
USA - MARSHALL - Mark Snyder
USA - TULANE - Bob Toledo
USA - TULSA - Todd Graham
USA - UAB - Neil Callaway
USA - UTEP - Mike Price

WAC - BOISE STATE - Chris Petersen
WAC - FRESNO STATE - Pat Hill
WAC - NEW MEX STATE - Hal Mumme
WAC - SAN JOSE STATE - Dick Tomey

Bob Stoops doesn't have a vote this year, but the other two with dogs in this hunt do.

I'm not sure what they're doing with Tommy Bowden's vote. And I'm assuming that Fulmer will keep voting until the end of the year.

I couldn't find any info on how these 61 coaches are chosen, but once I sorted by conference, it seems like all are pretty well represented.

ACC - 6 of 12 = 50%
Big 10 - 7 of 11 = 63.6%
Big 12 - 7 of 12 = 58.3%
Big East - 4 of 8 = 50%
Independents - 1 of 4 = 25%
MWC - 4 of 9 = 44.4%
MAC - 6 of 13 = 46.1%
Pac 10 - 5 of 10 = 50%
SEC - 6 of 12 = 50%
SunBelt - 4 of 8 = 50%
C-USA - 6 of 12 = 50%
WAC - 4 of 9 = 44.4%

Snoogans

11-18-2008, 01:17 PM

It was 35 student athletes from all the sports programs, and despite all the allegations, less than half were football players, and less than half of those had played more than a quarter of football. FSU preempted the NCAA and suspended kids before the whole report even came out just to avoid seeming like they were letting the athletes off easy. And you think that Bowden polices the elective music history courses of the whole team? He has certainly lost a step as a coach, but the one thing that is consistently said about him by people who work with him and were coached by him is that he tried to make them better people as well as players. He's got 60 18-22 year old kids coming through the team every year, puts a good percentage of them in the NFL, especially ones who go on to have great reputations like Warrick Dunn and Derrick Brooks, but a handful of shitheads over 30 years of coaching and he is a scumbag?

I just googled Rutgers football arrests, and got several pages of reports of Knights "improprieties" as well. Does that make your team and your coach scumbags?

Tired of this shit by teams and fans that are pissed that they get whipped every year.

first of all, it has nothing to do with my team. I could give a fuck what Rutgers is doing whne I form an opinion on other schools. im not fuckin blind. Im aware there are schools better then Rutgers and I respect them. also, let me see some of the arrests that have happened to Rutgers players since Schiano took over? List them. From the school that was ranked 3rd in academic progress this year. Show me. Dont fuckin sit here and post arrests of kids that came in under Shea either. i wanna see the list of Schiano's players

JimBeam

11-18-2008, 01:24 PM

I had heard the other day that Stoops didn't have a vote and the others did.

Yeah I wonder where Mack Brown's vote will go on Sunday.

Are those the votes that are kept secret ?

Another thing I notice is that it's not evenly split within the conference.

The SEC East as 4 coaches voting while the West only has 2.

Snoogans

11-18-2008, 01:26 PM

Snoogans

11-18-2008, 02:03 PM

saw this in the Forde Yard Dash"

ESPN research monster Brett Edgerton passes along the following reason for Ohio State fans to root for Vanderbilt this week and/or Kentucky next week when they play Tennessee (25): With one more loss, the Volunteers will join Michigan at the eight-loss plateau for the first time ever.

And that would leave Ohio State as the only current FBS school to have never lost eight games in a season. The Volunteers will have to win back-to-back games for the first time since last November -- when they beat Vandy and Kentucky -- to avoid that fate.

Thats pretty crazy. I woulda figured a few of the relatively newer teams might have never lost 8 games

KingKill

11-18-2008, 04:07 PM

Yeah The north east has other things to do like shovel snow

Snoogans

11-18-2008, 04:08 PM

Yeah The north east has other things to do like shovel snow

like NBA, MLB, NFL, and those 20 or so other people that watch hockey still.I would say if St John's was ever good again, college basketball would prob be more popular here

oh yea, and there is actually places to go, that are actually fun and filled with people. Its pretty cool

KingKill

11-18-2008, 04:36 PM

The newer teams play older teams for the cash and often have bad records for years

Snoogans

11-18-2008, 04:38 PM

The newer teams play older teams for the cash and often have bad records for years

i meant relatviely newer like 40-50 years old. not all these late 90's and 2000's teams

SP1!

11-18-2008, 04:52 PM

I love how all you guys are killing the big east cause they are having a down year this year when they have actually had a very good record in bowl games the past few years, including going 5-0 2 years ago. They arent good this year, but they arent bad, and they arent NEARLY as bad as people are acting like they are.

Is the disrespect from the fact that most of the teams in the big east dont have the fan bases that alot of other schools do because the northeast of the US actually has other shit to do? Sorry, because it isnt the entire areas life, that means the schools cant compete? I hate that shit. Again, aside from this year, which hasnt been AWFUL, but the past few years they have been up there.

Id put them head up against the ACC and take the big east and not even think twice......Now they are better in basketball in the big east too.
This year I think they are as bad as we are acting like they are and I wouldnt put them up against the ACC, except for WVU there arent many teams on the same level as the ACC.

And Im sorry the fan base excuse doesnt fly with me, they have time to worship the pats, jets, giants, eagles, bills but they ignore college teams, there is only one excuse, they arent winning. Northern people are band wagon jumpers and only get really excited when their teams are winning, when NE sucked there were plenty of seats in foxboro, same goes for the stadium in NJ when the giants or jets suck, they may sell out the game but thats just season ticket base is so high.

We will take the big east seriously when they have more than 1 decent team year in and year out, hopefully syracuse took a step in the right direction this week, if that was any of the major conferences he would have been fired his 3rd season.

Snoogans

11-18-2008, 04:56 PM

This year I think they are as bad as we are acting like they are and I wouldnt put them up against the ACC, except for WVU there arent many teams on the same level as the ACC.

And Im sorry the fan base excuse doesnt fly with me, they have time to worship the pats, jets, giants, eagles, bills but they ignore college teams, there is only one excuse, they arent winning. Northern people are band wagon jumpers and only get really excited when their teams are winning, when NE sucked there were plenty of seats in foxboro, same goes for the stadium in NJ when the giants or jets suck, they may sell out the game but thats just season ticket base is so high.

We will take the big east seriously when they have more than 1 decent team year in and year out, hopefully syracuse took a step in the right direction this week, if that was any of the major conferences he would have been fired his 3rd season.

I wasnt making excuses for the bandwagon jumpers. My point was the fact that the fan base is bad I think adds to the disrespect they get around college football. That was my point. And the Giants have like a 30 year waiting list. Even when they suck, there is a HUGE demand for tickets. I agree the college fanbase should be better here, i wasnt making excuses for it. Just sayin it hurts the perception

And all year everyone ignored cincinnati.They are fuckin good. they have had to use 5 or 6 QBs this year and are still 8-2. I think the big east is alot better right now then it was the first half of the year. I dont expect a repeat of this year. Except from Cuse. fuck them

SP1!

11-18-2008, 05:55 PM

I wasnt making excuses for the bandwagon jumpers. My point was the fact that the fan base is bad I think adds to the disrespect they get around college football. That was my point. And the Giants have like a 30 year waiting list. Even when they suck, there is a HUGE demand for tickets. I agree the college fanbase should be better here, i wasnt making excuses for it. Just sayin it hurts the perception

And all year everyone ignored cincinnati.They are fuckin good. they have had to use 5 or 6 QBs this year and are still 8-2. I think the big east is alot better right now then it was the first half of the year. I dont expect a repeat of this year. Except from Cuse. fuck them
I dont think the fan base has anything to do with it, every year they have one good team now, WVU and then the rest, they arent as dominate as FSU was in the 90s for the ACC but they were on their way. Yeah those teams should have a waiting list, there are what almost 20 million people living near NY, 8 million in boston? They will have a waiting list, my point was that if they arent winning they will not go, when the giants suck you can see empty seats or slowly filling up seats, their fandom is no where near college fans down here, even in the shitty seasons athens was packed.

I think cincinnati is the product of a crappy conference but I will say they are on the upswing, they are no where near as good as an 8-2 team in the SEC, big 10, or even the pac 10. But yeah barring injuries teams get better as the year goes on, thats what happened with UGA last year as the year wore on they got really good, its just a shame they had to lose to a shitty UT team, otherwise it may have been them getting to beat OSU for a title.

KingKill

11-18-2008, 05:58 PM

ozzie

11-19-2008, 09:50 AM

Well with a population base of what 20 plus million or so with in 50 miles I hope you can get under 100,000 in the seats at a Giants game.

Alabama has base of 1 million in the state and gets just as many as does TN LSU and so on etc etc.

I dont know if the northern fans are band wagon jumpers I am in the south I cant make a call on that one.Ohio Michigan and Penn State fill em up.

I think its just a Big East thing the fact that they are mostly small schools with fairly young teams and the only reason they are in the big east is the ACC took the good teams away for the most part and the Big East was sending out form letters to every school on the eastern seaboard.

I hate when Universities (especially private ones) think that just because you live near a school, that you should have automatic allegiance to that school, and are pressured to "support" their programs.

For example, The U. of South Alabama is in Mobile, and their AD and coaches are often on the radio asking the city (and surrounding area) to come out and support their teams. They're trying to start up a Div-1A football program (following South Florida's gameplan), which is great, but if they play their games on Saturdays up against Bama or Auburn (or both), attendance is not going to be very good.

I went to Auburn, not USA, so unless the Tigers are in town (which they are sometimes for Baseball or Basketball), I don't go to USA games.

I'm sure the same is true in larger, metropolitan areas like New York or New Jersey. I'm sure that the vast majority of the population attended other schools besides Rutgers, and therefore don't have the loyalty to that school, even though it's the largest Div-1A football school in the area.

To me it's more interesting to compare the enrollment at some of the schools across the country, and then look at their average attendance.

Auburn only has around 20k or so undergrads enrolled at any time, and therefore is graduating around 4k students a year. Yet they sell out over 87,000 seats to 7 or 8 home games every year.

Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State have a much larger enrollment.

In AU's case, the majority of the season ticket holders are alumni, and probably the case with most schools.

But I will admit that there is a HUGE Bama following of people who never attended that school, or have never even stepped foot on campus. They're just college football fans who either picked Bama, or who were raised by Bama fans from the Bear days, and it's hard to compete with them, especially when they're winning.

We've got our share too (every school does), but I've never seen anything like the Bama Nation until I moved down here.

I guess my point is that I noticed when I lived in the North, and Northeast, most fans or supporters of a University have (or had) some sort of an affiliation with that school, and if not, they don't tend to come out and support that team, as they do with local Pro teams, or the school they attended.

Freakshow

11-19-2008, 10:06 AM

ozzie

11-19-2008, 10:17 AM

Michigan's undergrad enrollment is 26,000 so it's not much greater than Auburn. They do have 14,000 grad students, but I would bet that those students aren't going to the game in the same percentage as the undergrads.

At PSU the student section is slightly less than 1/4 of the stadium. That's around 22 or 23 thousand students out of an undergraduate enrollement of rought 40,000. You can't find a hotel room within 50 miles of State College on a football weekend. A lot of people make a day trip out of it, and traffic crawls on the 3 major routes into town on a football saturday because 50 or 60 thousand people are driving in from Philly, Pittsburg, DC, NJ, etc...

When I was at AU my freshman year, I saw RV's parking on the intermural fields on the Monday before their first game, and it didn't hit me until the day before when every patch of land was covered, who they were, and why they were there.

Some never left until December.

The Fraternity I was in when I was at AU lost their house, so yeah, I'm down to either driving in and out on game day, or paying premium prices months in advance for a room, and then usually STILL having to drive from the Hotel to near campus to get to the game.

So for Penn State, would you agree that the majority of the fans who attend the games are Alumni?

I know for Auburn, before you're even eligible to apply for season tickets, you have to have made donations to the "Tiger Unlimited Fund", or other donation, so it's usually only Alum that apply. I know quite a few non-alum who go to games, but they usually aren't season ticket holders.

Freakshow

11-19-2008, 10:37 AM

Yeah, you have to earn points with the Nittany Lion Club in order to purchase tickets. But they've been more available recently as single games, so I think they aren't selling out completely with season tickets. I was able to buy tickets on ticketmaster to a game versus Michigan State a couple years ago which was a ticket that was offered to Michigan State and didn't sell so they returned it.

Snoogans

11-19-2008, 04:53 PM

I dont think the fan base has anything to do with it, every year they have one good team now, WVU and then the rest, they arent as dominate as FSU was in the 90s for the ACC but they were on their way. Yeah those teams should have a waiting list, there are what almost 20 million people living near NY, 8 million in boston? They will have a waiting list, my point was that if they arent winning they will not go, when the giants suck you can see empty seats or slowly filling up seats, their fandom is no where near college fans down here, even in the shitty seasons athens was packed.

I think cincinnati is the product of a crappy conference but I will say they are on the upswing, they are no where near as good as an 8-2 team in the SEC, big 10, or even the pac 10. But yeah barring injuries teams get better as the year goes on, thats what happened with UGA last year as the year wore on they got really good, its just a shame they had to lose to a shitty UT team, otherwise it may have been them getting to beat OSU for a title.

last I saw the population of boston itself was only like 800K+. Its just so small it seems way bigger.

razorboy

11-19-2008, 05:05 PM

Snoogans

11-19-2008, 05:13 PM

The population of Boston city proper is around 600,000. Greater Boston is around 4,000,000 and Boston metro is close to 6,000,000.

compared to NY metro which is like 20 million

SP1!

11-19-2008, 07:41 PM

last I saw the population of boston itself was only like 800K+. Its just so small it seems way bigger.

The population of Boston city proper is around 600,000. Greater Boston is around 4,000,000 and Boston metro is close to 6,000,000.

That was my point I was including surrounding areas and boston has a much better rail system to get downtown, its the main reason why atlanta fans never show up for baseball or basketball games. Its a bitch to get down town and our rail service's closest stop is about 5 miles away and you have to take a 15-30 minute bus trip after you get off the rail. Its a fucking joke, its why you will see falcons games sold out on sundays since its easier to get into the city. Its not that we dont support the teams, its that we dont want to sit in that fucking traffic.

And also for like the first 35 seasons the falcons were owned by the shittiest owners in all of sports and used them for tax purposes and to launder money through them, it was a joke.

Snoogans

11-20-2008, 03:20 PM

Rutgers just as corrupt as its bosses, the state of New Jersey (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3714749)

The 35-page report, prepared by a nine-person committee, found that Rutgers president Richard L. McCormick and the university's board of governors failed to exercise proper oversight of the athletic department. It concluded that the university was not sufficiently prepared to oversee a push into big-time football and allowed the athletic department to spend without prior restraint.

That spending included four separate multimillion-dollar deals with football coach Greg Schiano, of which none was reviewed or approved by the board of governors.

The report said Rutgers suffered from inadequate internal controls and communications between departments, as well as "an uninformed board on some specific important issues and limited presidential leadership."

The study followed a series of reports by The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., which documented hundreds of thousands of dollars in off-the-books spending, contract sweeteners and side letters for Schiano that were not made public, and a no-bid deal with a sports marketing group that was retained after it put athletic director Robert E. Mulcahy's son on its payroll.

Nice heads. It doesn't seem like the program broke an NCAA rules, just that the University basically let them spend whatever they wanted on the parts of the program where they can spend whatever they want. Doesnt seem to have anything to do with students

SP1!

11-20-2008, 06:36 PM

Rutgers just as corrupt as its bosses, the state of New Jersey (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3714749)

Nice heads. It doesn't seem like the program broke an NCAA rules, just that the University basically let them spend whatever they wanted on the parts of the program where they can spend whatever they want. Doesnt seem to have anything to do with students

You would be shocked as to what the NCAA will find when a school doesnt have what they call institutional control, thats when they can impose any fine they want on a team. They do that to scare teams from acting shady since every one thinks athletics in colleges are dirty anyways.

SP1!

11-20-2008, 07:14 PM

As a Georgia fan I am not happy with GT's resurgence, their new coach is fucking good and thats yet another game that we have to be wary of for years to come.

Snoogans

11-20-2008, 07:51 PM

You would be shocked as to what the NCAA will find when a school doesnt have what they call institutional control, thats when they can impose any fine they want on a team. They do that to scare teams from acting shady since every one thinks athletics in colleges are dirty anyways.

yea i thought about that after. We'll see what happens

JimBeam

11-21-2008, 08:53 AM

Mel Kipper was on Mike & Mike this morning preaching the same nonsense the Texas fans are saying w/ regards to whether or not Oklahoma wins tomorrow.

He was saying that the head to head matchup should trump any Oklahoma boost over Texas in the BCS standings.

He was also adding the fact that Texas lost on he last play.

Who cares. They lost.

That's why the game is 60 minutes and not 59 1/2.

Actually if you looked closely at the game Texas Tech was in control for most of it and got sloppy.

That's not to Texas' credit but to Texas Tech's detriment.

If you wanna split hairs there were some bad calls in the Oklahoma/Texas game, on both sides, that might've changed the actual outcome.

So what I would've liked to ask Kiper is if he thinks that win or lose that Texas Tech should stay above Texas in the BCS because they won head to head.

Texas and Texas Tech both had bumps in the BCS because they beat what people thought was a very good Oklahoma St team which as it tunrs out might not be anything.

Now Oklahoma's gonna play them much less highly touted and not receive the bump.

I think if Oklahoma blows out Texas Tech then they clearly deserve to be in the Big 12 title game because none of the other match ups were blow outs.

A close game ?

Then it's tough to decide fairly.

SP1!

11-21-2008, 02:29 PM

Mel Kiper is a douche

Snoogans

11-21-2008, 05:31 PM

watch what you say or Count Kiper will come drink your blood

led37zep

11-22-2008, 06:42 AM

Its is my week off...Oregon has the Bye. Next weekend should make for a great Civil war game. For the first time in years Oregon State has something to play for, if Oregon can make this whole "Our QB's barely pass" system work and our DB's stop giving the receivers 10 yard buffers it should be an interesting game.

from ESPN:
People like to make a big deal about college football rivalry games. We ain't arguing: it's a sweet way to pass a few November and December Saturdays. While MSU vs. PSU this Saturday (Land Grant Trophy) is important and Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State (Bedlam) next weekend might be, there is one rivalry game you need to focus on this year: The Civil War (Oregon State vs. Oregon). Why? It has tremendous ramifications for your social life. Follow us: in all likelihood, the Beavers will not lose to Arizona this weekend. Thus, if they can win the "Civil War" game, they will (probably) make their first Rose Bowl appearance since 1965. Since we can't see Michigan State get by Penn State (PSU beat OSU, who absolutely destroyed MSU), that means the Rose Bowl is Oregon State vs. Penn State. Uh, remember this? The Rose Bowl has to be a somewhat compelling game, or else 2009 gets off on the totally wrong sporting foot. 4pm on 1-1 is not a good time to be alive, generally; all you want is a good football game to watch. We can't have a PSU/Oregon State woodshedding. So root for the Ducks in the Civil War, because honestly, how amazing would Carroll vs. Paterno be as a hangover cure?

ozzie

11-22-2008, 10:07 AM

Its is my week off...Oregon has the Bye. Next weekend should make for a great Civil war game. For the first time in years Oregon State has something to play for, if Oregon can make this whole "Our QB's barely pass" system work and our DB's stop giving the receivers 10 yard buffers it should be an interesting game.

from ESPN:

People like to make a big deal about college football rivalry games. We ain't arguing: it's a sweet way to pass a few November and December Saturdays. While MSU vs. PSU this Saturday (Land Grant Trophy) is important and Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State (Bedlam) next weekend might be, there is one rivalry game you need to focus on this year: The Civil War (Oregon State vs. Oregon). Why? It has tremendous ramifications for your social life. Follow us: in all likelihood, the Beavers will not lose to Arizona this weekend. Thus, if they can win the "Civil War" game, they will (probably) make their first Rose Bowl appearance since 1965. Since we can't see Michigan State get by Penn State (PSU beat OSU, who absolutely destroyed MSU), that means the Rose Bowl is Oregon State vs. Penn State. Uh, remember this? The Rose Bowl has to be a somewhat compelling game, or else 2009 gets off on the totally wrong sporting foot. 4pm on 1-1 is not a good time to be alive, generally; all you want is a good football game to watch. We can't have a PSU/Oregon State woodshedding. So root for the Ducks in the Civil War, because honestly, how amazing would Carroll vs. Paterno be as a hangover cure?

Sorry, I can't root for USC to win the Pac 10.

I'm not rooting FOR the Beav's, as much as I am AGAINST USC.

Actually, if UCLA could somehow pull out another upset against USC... and the Beav's can take care of Arizona, and then the Ducks can beat State, we'd have another three way tie atop another conference.

I'd settle for that.

razorboy

11-22-2008, 10:14 AM

Michigan and OSU both blow. The Big Ten in general blows.

Tenbatsuzen

11-22-2008, 10:54 AM

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but...

let's go Pitt

TheGameHHH

11-22-2008, 02:00 PM

'Cuse is about to upset Notre Dame......can somebody please fire Weis now?

cougarjake13

11-22-2008, 02:02 PM

ole miss 28
lsu 13

quarter and a half to go

razorboy

11-22-2008, 02:11 PM

'Cuse is about to upset Notre Dame......can somebody please fire Weis now?

ND loses. Ha ha. Proddies everywhere rejoice.

Ritalin

11-22-2008, 02:22 PM

'Cuse is about to upset Notre Dame......can somebody please fire Weis now?

No, no fucking way.

I want those self righteous racist pricks to sit there in the cold and watch Jaba the Coach waddle up and down the sidelines for another 9 years.

Fuck em.

ozzie

11-22-2008, 03:07 PM

Third game in five weeks that LSU has played the featured CBS afternoon game at home...

...third straight loss.

They play at Arkansas next Friday afternoon on... CBS.

(other loss was also on CBS, but prime-time kickoff @ Florida)

Both losses last year were CBS afternoon games.

Maybe my buddy (genuine coonass) was right about them.

Freakshow

11-22-2008, 03:15 PM

Michigan and OSU both blow. The Big Ten in general blows.

except penn state. my team can hang with any team in the country and won't get a chance to prove it on the field. obama where the FUCK you at?

razorboy

11-22-2008, 03:20 PM

40 minutes. I'm staring to get butterflies.

Go Red Raiders.

drjoek

11-22-2008, 05:35 PM

How do they justify putting ND on tv every week and talk positive about the program? The happy talk every week is laughable. I actually heard them talking about the quality of the bowl bid they were going to get once they beat Cuse which oh I'm sorry they didn't do. 20 point favorites against a 2-8 team that fired its coach on Monday. Its time to pull the plug.

Epschtein

11-22-2008, 05:43 PM

murray is a monster, not looking good for tech.

Epschtein

11-22-2008, 05:52 PM

holy shit, oklahoma scored twice more since i posted that.

i love upsets but this isnt exactly a big upset, and i was sort of hoping for texas tech to go undefeated but man are they getting their dicks knocked in the dirt so far.

ugh and now they are totally losing their cool, 2 personal foul calls on tech in the last minute of the half.

ozzie

11-22-2008, 05:53 PM

40 minutes. I'm staring to get butterflies.

Go Red Raiders.

I'll try to keep my celebrating to a minimum, seeing how you're a fan.

But, dammit, I feel vindicated right now.

JimBeam

11-22-2008, 06:01 PM

I want those self righteous racist pricks..

This is one of the most ridiculously ignorant statements I've ever read in this thread.

Firstly if ND was racist wouldn't they have NOT hired Willingham to begin with ?

Instead they were one of maybe 15 teams ( that's probably very generous ) in the last 20 years to actually hire a black coach.

Willingham was fired because he SUCKED. He couldn't coach and he couldn't recruit.

Ritalin have you even followed his post-ND career ?

I'm done w/ Weis at this point as well but to think that the results with any more years of Willingham would've been anything better is insane.

He's 5-21 in the PAC10 over the last 3 years. That includes this year's 0-8 and a loss to a Wash St team that had 1 win itself ( against a 4-7 Portland St team from the FCS ).

Firing Willingham wasn't racist, it was one of the smartest decisions in the history of college football.

Epschtein

11-22-2008, 06:08 PM

man i just wanted this to be an interesting game mostly :( oh well, bruins game has been great (in OT with the habs) and ricky hatton is fighting tonight on HBO, i was in the mood for some epic football tho.

there were some monster scores put up today! purdue won 62-10 or so, tons of other games in the 40's. this game might clear the century mark if tech doesnt regroup at the half.

JimBeam

11-22-2008, 06:10 PM

20 point favorites ..

Points spreads are for gamblers and have nothing at all to do with games being played on the field.

...against a 2-8 team that fired its coach on Monday..

This is the part that baffles me.

Weis, the " genius ", can't out coach a lame duck coach who's team has lost double digit games the previous 3 years ( and should've been 4 ).

No turnovers and they lost this game.

Is the defense that bad ?

TheGameHHH

11-22-2008, 06:15 PM

Points spreads are for gamblers and have nothing at all to do with games being played on the field.

This is the part that baffles me.

Weis, the " genius ", can't out coach a lame duck coach who's team has lost double digit games the previous 3 years ( and should've been 4 ).

No turnovers and they lost this game.

Is the defense that bad ?

they are based on inferential statistics, which are actually fairly accurate in predicting what does happen on the field. nobody can predict the future, but stats can certainly help get within reasonable certainty. dont act like theyre crazy. Notre Dame should have taken a dump on 'Cuse, and if u ask me 20 points was a little light.

JimBeam

11-22-2008, 06:24 PM

Obvioulsy there's credibility to the point spreads but to me they don't make a loss worse.

Losing to Syracuse, because they only had 2 wins, was bad regardless of how many points ND was expected to win by.

ozzie

11-22-2008, 07:30 PM

I know "margin of victory" isn't "supposed" to mean anything, but I think some voters will definitely be influenced by the one-sided-ness of tonight's game, and vote OU ahead of the other two Big 12 teams.

There were some that were saying they'd still vote Tech ahead of the other two even with a loss, but I can't see it now after this.

And, yeah, it sucks for OU that beating the pokes won't mean as much as it supposedly did when both Texas and Tech did it. (Assuming they win, of course)

I'm hoping for no upsets in the Big 12 next week, and for all three to finish tied.

Snoogans

11-22-2008, 07:43 PM

Coach_Mac

11-22-2008, 08:01 PM

i actually lost some respect as a fan for oklahoma tonight. Shut it down dickheads. Seriously, Stoops was a total scumbag in the second half of this game

Im a Texas Tech fan...graduated from there. I am embarassed as hell about tonight but I'm not mad at Stoops. If we suck so bad we can't stop them, we deserve to keep getting scored on.

ozzie

11-22-2008, 08:12 PM

Im a Texas Tech fan...graduated from there. I am embarassed as hell about tonight but I'm not mad at Stoops. If we suck so bad we can't stop them, we deserve to keep getting scored on.

In all fairness, only one of OU's scoring drives in the second half started in their own territory.

And it's not like Tech hasn't rolled up huge numbers in their wins either. They were averaging almost 48 pts a game.

Snoogans

11-22-2008, 08:44 PM

yea but wasnt the TD that made it 58 like a fuckin 76 yard td pass?

If im wrong here ill accept it, i was only half payin attention by then. But they were scoring so fast it just seemed fucked up

Tenbatsuzen

11-22-2008, 08:45 PM

Dear Pitt:

Go fuck yourselves. Prepare for hell to be unleashed on Friday.

Snoogans

11-22-2008, 08:46 PM

Dear Pitt:

Go fuck yourselves. Prepare for hell to be unleashed on Friday.

backyard brawl is next friday night?

Tenbatsuzen

11-22-2008, 08:47 PM

backyard brawl is next friday night?

mmmhmm. would have been a huge fucking game if Pitt held up their end of the bargain. But they are a bunch of homos.

Snoogans

11-22-2008, 08:48 PM

true, but still should be a great game. Always a fuckin battle. And on a friday night that rules, bonus football is always great and when its a weekday big game, thats super bonus

Tenbatsuzen

11-22-2008, 08:53 PM

true, but still should be a great game. Always a fuckin battle. And on a friday night that rules, bonus football is always great and when its a weekday big game, thats super bonus

Last year's Brawl was awful. THEY WERE 28 POINT FAVORITES.

Basically, I'm putting all hope on Syracuse to work a miracle, but it's not bloody likely.

RodneyHarrison

11-22-2008, 08:54 PM

Last year's Brawl was awful. THEY WERE 28 POINT FAVORITES.

Basically, I'm putting all hope on Syracuse to work a miracle, but it's not bloody likely.

awful for WV but it was a great game.

edit: MOAFUCKAS. SNOOGANS ASKED RODNEY HARRISON TO POST THIS FOR HIM

PRINT IT

K.C.

11-22-2008, 09:00 PM

Glad I took Oklahoma -7.

I was looking at the 77 over/under and thinking; "christ, 77 is a hell of a number in any sporting event."

I'm glad I didn't act on that thought.

Ritalin

11-23-2008, 03:29 AM

This is one of the most ridiculously ignorant statements I've ever read in this thread.

Firstly if ND was racist wouldn't they have NOT hired Willingham to begin with ?

Instead they were one of maybe 15 teams ( that's probably very generous ) in the last 20 years to actually hire a black coach.

Willingham was fired because he SUCKED. He couldn't coach and he couldn't recruit.

Ritalin have you even followed his post-ND career ?

I'm done w/ Weis at this point as well but to think that the results with any more years of Willingham would've been anything better is insane.

He's 5-21 in the PAC10 over the last 3 years. That includes this year's 0-8 and a loss to a Wash St team that had 1 win itself ( against a 4-7 Portland St team from the FCS ).

Firing Willingham wasn't racist, it was one of the smartest decisions in the history of college football.

Yeah, alright, you make some good points here, especially that they wouldn't have hired Willingham in the first place if they were racist. Point well taken.

I stand by self righteous, though, and still revel in their misery.

El Mudo

11-23-2008, 04:59 AM

(a) I hate my football team....and I saw this coming

(b) I'd also like to thank ESPN for their blow by blow coverage of Myron Rolle's return from a Rhodes Scholarship interview in Birmingham, including live footage of him driving down the street, getting out of an SUV, seeing his parents, walking into the locker room, getting cheered by the FSU section, getting dressed, and walking out onto the field...all while GAME ACTION WAS HAPPENING....FUCK YOU ESPN I DON'T CARE ABOUT STUPID MYRON ROLLE, AND I'M PRETTY SURE MOST OF THE AUDIENCE DIDN'T

(c) meaningless game against BC next week...hell, id rather almost lose to BC next week so I dont have to hear more Myron Rolle stories in the ACC title game

El Mudo

11-23-2008, 05:03 AM

What a wacky freakin stat

Maryland has beaten six straight ranked teams, but is 5-9 against unranked teams since that streak began.

:blink::blink::blink:

Oh! and look what ESPN was so helpful to mention twice in the article in a little box and right next to the little box in the paragraph!

Florida State safety Myron Rolle won a Rhodes Scholarship less than three hours before kickoff

Did you guys hear Myron Rolle won a Rhodes Scholarship?!! Hot dog! Myron Rolle won a Rhodes Scholarship!!! Holy shit hot dog, Myron Rolle won a Rhodes Scholarship!! A Rhodes Scholarship? Won by Myron Rolle!!

See? I can be ESPN too!!

Freakshow

11-23-2008, 05:10 AM

but if it wasn't for that idiot o'leary making up his entire resume they wouldn't have hired willingham at all-so don't go patting yourself on the back too much for that move.

wasn't the game a blowout, though? sorry mudo, but i actually was very interested in his story because he chose fsu over psu for academics. nlions fans howled over that one, but it seems he did alright for himself. rolle is a jersey kid, too, snoogans

JimBeam

11-23-2008, 08:20 AM

I stand by self righteous, though, and still revel in their misery.

This I can't defend because it has some truth to it.

ND fans can be very douchey and, much like their Yankee and Red Sox counterparts, be very bandwagony.

This doesn't help :

Even before the end, there was some ugliness for Notre Dame.

The Irish players were pelted by snowballs on the sideline for much of the first quarter by fans sitting on the student section. Defensive end Ethan Johnson was struck on the left cheek and several other players also getting hit by snowballs despite three announcement urging fans to stop.

As far as Oklahoma " running up th score " let's not forget it was Texas Tech wou decided to go for it 4th and short a few times and tried an onside kick.

It's not like OU used gimmick plays. They just showed that they were the more talented team w/ a much more consistent offense.

Doug Fluite said in the 3 way tie he'd give OU the top spot due to their non-conference wins ( against Cincinnati and TCU ).

Add to that point differential between all 3 head to head I'd agree w/ him.

razorboy

11-23-2008, 08:46 AM

Personally, I thought the coverage of Rolle's receiving the Rhodes scholarship was pretty cool. It's nice to hear about a college athlete who isn't a meathead.

ozzie

11-23-2008, 09:02 AM

AP Poll is out:

1. Alabama (63)
2. Florida (2)
3. Oklahoma
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Texas Tech
8. Utah
9. Boise State
10. Ohio State

JimBeam

11-23-2008, 09:20 AM

I didn't think the Rolle story was that big of an interuption.

Sure it had nothing to do w/ the game, and I wouldn't wanna miss any plays when they could cover it at half time or in the post game, but the subject helps balance out things like this :

Florida's Newton faces felony counts after fellow student's laptop stolen

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3718266

Bama

11-23-2008, 09:54 AM

A football player winning the Rhodes Scholarship is pretty damn impressive. He was the only reason I had any interest in the Maryland-FSU game.

In other college football news........

BEST. SEASON. EVER.

JimBeam

11-23-2008, 10:02 AM

ozzie

11-23-2008, 11:47 AM

So Utah has locked up one of the 8 non-title BCS spots correct ?

That leaves 7 more not counting the national title teams ?

Mussberger kept screweing up last night saying that the Big 12 could get all 3 from the South into BCS bowl games.

But that's not the case.

A conference can't send more than 2 teams to BCS games right ?

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

Under "At-Large Eligibility", it states:

No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.

But that is AFTER their "automatic" qualifier is selected... so technically, the bowls could choose ANOTHER two "at large" teams from the same conference. Above says that if they have two in the title game, they can't get more than another two in.

I don't see any other rule against it.

Unless Boise jumps Utah in the BCS standings, yes, Utah gets the "automatic" bid.

After the 7 "automatic" bids, the remaining three "should" be the next three highest ranked teams, but each bowl gets their pick among the other "qualified" teams.

Last year, since OSU was in the title game, the Rose Bowl got the first pick, and reached all the way down for the next highest ranked Big 10 team (Illinois) to face USC instead of the highest ranked team (Georgia)... because they are about "tradition", and not about fairness, or the best match-ups.

This year the Rose Bowl is pretty much set, so we shouldn't have to worry about that.

The only thing stopping the Big 12 from getting 3 teams in could be if Oregon State won the Pac 10, and USC was ranked higher.

If everyone wins out, the SEC will get one of the remaining three, and the Big 12 will get the other.

They all try to keep "traditions" in place wherever possible, so assuming the title game is the Big 12 vs. SEC, the others would likely be:

Orange - ACC Champ vs. ______
Rose - Penn State vs. USC / Oregon State
Sugar - SEC #2 vs. ______
Fiesta - Big 12 #2 vs _______

Two of those blanks are where the Big East champ and Utah will go. The other is likely to be Big 12 #3 or USC.

ozzie

11-23-2008, 01:17 PM

AP Poll is out:

1. Alabama (63)
2. Florida (2)
3. Oklahoma
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Texas Tech
8. Utah
9. Boise State
10. Ohio State

Harris Poll:

1. Alabama (108)
2. Florida (3)
3. Oklahoma (2)
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Texas Tech
8. Utah (1)
9. Boise State
10. Ohio State

USA Today - Coaches Poll

1. Alabama (56)
2. Oklahoma (4)
3. Florida (1)
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Utah
8. Texas Tech
9. Boise State
10. Ohio State

2/3 of the BCS is in. Unless they lose to OK State, or Texas lobbies a lot of voters, Oklahoma will be the Big 12 South representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.

SP1!

11-23-2008, 01:24 PM

Wow I wouldnt have thought that OU would have won like that, just amazing.

And Im pretty sure no conference can have more than 2 teams in BCS games, unless you had OU and Texas at 1,2 then they could get another one in but they go to great lengths so that doesnt happen which is what dropped michigan(#2) a couple years ago and got florida in the game.

It looks like I will be rooting for the big 12 this year since I hate both of the other teams that may get to go.

Freakshow

11-23-2008, 02:57 PM

SP1!

11-23-2008, 03:18 PM

Love the first place vote for Utah in the Harris...

edit: I think they might be getting one of the great screw jobs of our time. They've beaten 2 currently ranked teams, Florida has not. I'd rank them over PSU even if I had a vote right now.
Yeah argue that some more when they play at least one top 10 team, as it is florida played 4 ranked at the time teams and 2 will still be in the top 10 at the end of the season.

And even if they are still ranked TCU and BYU arent that great, tops of their conference but middle of the pack elsewhere.

Amazing all the people refuse to see that most at large teams do not deserve this kind of consideration.

Freakshow

11-23-2008, 03:21 PM

SP1!

11-23-2008, 03:29 PM

"ranked at the time" is such bullshit. LSU was ranked #4, but never in a million years was that team remotely that good. Troy game ring a bell?

I forgot Oregon State. Utah has beaten 3 ranked teams. And that Oregon State team beat USC, remember?

Yes a severely over rated USC team, one that probably wont even be in the rose bowl, whats your point? All of us in the SEC wondered how LSU got that high losing all they did, we thought it was just because they won last year.

Still that does not change the fact that Utah does not deserve to be in there over a better team, I dont think a BCS bowl will take a second at large non bcs team unless the first team draws really well.

It looks like SEC champ vs OU in the NC game, and I dont think OU is going to play in the big 12 championship game again, that would be the 2nd time they did that if they make it to the NC game.

Dash77

11-23-2008, 03:36 PM

AP Poll is out:

1. Alabama (63)
2. Florida (2)
3. Oklahoma
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Texas Tech
8. Utah
9. Boise State
10. Ohio State

I just wish this would end in a fucking playoff....

SP1!

11-23-2008, 03:39 PM

I just wish this would end in a fucking playoff....

Its the only way to prove the point, but until the networks demand it they wont ever do it

Freakshow

11-23-2008, 03:46 PM

Yes a severely over rated USC team, one that probably wont even be in the rose bowl, whats your point? All of us in the SEC wondered how LSU got that high losing all they did, we thought it was just because they won last year.

Still that does not change the fact that Utah does not deserve to be in there over a better team, I dont think a BCS bowl will take a second at large non bcs team unless the first team draws really well.

It looks like SEC champ vs OU in the NC game, and I dont think OU is going to play in the big 12 championship game again, that would be the 2nd time they did that if they make it to the NC game.

USC overrated, Penn State overrated, Utah overrated...

What does your top 25 look like?

1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. Georgia
4. Mississippi
5. South Carolina
6. Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech??

???????

Dash77

11-23-2008, 03:52 PM

Yes a severely over rated USC team, one that probably wont even be in the rose bowl, whats your point? All of us in the SEC wondered how LSU got that high losing all they did, we thought it was just because they won last year.

Still that does not change the fact that Utah does not deserve to be in there over a better team, I dont think a BCS bowl will take a second at large non bcs team unless the first team draws really well.

It looks like SEC champ vs OU in the NC game, and I dont think OU is going to play in the big 12 championship game again, that would be the 2nd time they did that if they make it to the NC game.

Here's what I don't understand, how can OU ne in the NC game if they don't win the BIG 12 title ? It's going to be Texas v BAMA in the NC..

SP1!

11-23-2008, 04:08 PM

USC overrated, Penn State overrated, Utah overrated...

What does your top 25 look like?

1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. Georgia
4. Mississippi
5. South Carolina
6. Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech??

???????
I never said anything like that, what I did say was that PSU was the recipient of a weak big 10 conference, they are solid but I do not feel they deserve a NC shot, but that hasnt stopped teams in the past, like OU and OSU the past few years. And that poll is just ridiculous, 3 teams cant be tied at 6!!!

Here's what I don't understand, how can OU ne in the NC game if they don't win the BIG 12 title ? It's going to be Texas v BAMA in the NC..
It happened a few years ago and here is a scenario, UT doesnt win very impressively and doesnt jump OU in the standings would mean OU in the NC game, It can and has happened so dont rule it out.

Im not even sure how the big 12 ends up if UT, TT, OU all win out. I imagine that if OU loses another game TT gets in and if TT loses another game its UT. But I have heard that the big 12 has the worst system in the event of a 3 way tie.