OT: Wow (BCS Championship)

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

... is complete codswallop....

Hey, watch your phrase-ology, there kiddo! You're rising above your station a little, eh?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

This kind of thinking constantly baffles me. If Boise St. were part of one of the "big conferences," do you really think they'd remain exactly as they are today? Of course they wouldn't. They'd be able to recruit better players, because they're part of a "big conference." They'd be consistently playing better opponents, which would make them a better team, just like it does for teams in one of those "big conferences." The notion that teams from a non-big conference couldn't possibly compete in a big conference, especially if they were part of that conference, is complete codswallop. BYU was just one team to demonstrate that this year.

Agree. The salary cap is set much higher for the major conferences though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dblref

Nevada's comment wasn't that the SEC was better than the Big 10 (although it was last night). His comment was that both Ohio State and Michigan got handled in their bowl games. This is a true statement.

It is not about the Big Ten (which is the comment he made) it is about the teams that were playing. It is clear to me that USC is by far one of the best teams in the country. USC killed Arkansas at home early in the season. Then Arkansas runs through the SEC until they play LSU and Florida. Then Arkansas gets beat by a "slow and physical" Wisconsin team. I thought the SEC was about speed? Then a terrible Penn State team who struggled against any ranked team in the Big Ten beats Tennessee who beat a Top 5 California team in Knoxville. Hell Florida struggled against really bad SEC teams most of the year and now they play almost a perfect game against Ohio State.

The bottom line we need a playoff. Wisconsin deserved a change to prove they were a great team. They only lost to Michigan this year in a close game at that on the road. USC deserved a chance to overcome a couple of bad games against conference teams that are always geared up to play them. Boise State deserved a change to prove they could beat anyone in the country. The bowl system sucks and most of the games are not even watch able.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about the Big Ten (which is the comment he made) it is about the teams that were playing. It is clear to me that USC is by far one of the best teams in the country. USC killed Arkansas at home early in the season. Then Arkansas runs through the SEC until they play LSU and Florida. Then Arkansas gets beat by a "slow and physical" Wisconsin team. I thought the SEC was about speed? Then a terrible Penn State team who struggled against any ranked team in the Big Ten beats Tennessee who beat a Top 5 California team in Knoxville. Hell Florida struggled against really bad SEC teams most of the year and now they play almost a perfect game against Ohio State.

The bottom line we need a playoff. Wisconsin deserved a change to prove they were a great team. They only lost to Michigan this year in a close game at that on the road. USC deserved a chance to overcome a couple of bad games against conference teams that are always geared up to play them. Boise State deserved a change to prove they could beat anyone in the country. The bowl system sucks and most of the games are not even watch able.

Peace

Even a playoff will not really tell you who is better unless you play best of 5 or best of 7 (and that will never happen). Lessor teams pull off upsets all the time. That doesn't mean they're the better team.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about the Big Ten (which is the comment he made) it is about the teams that were playing. It is clear to me that USC is by far one of the best teams in the country. USC killed Arkansas at home early in the season. Then Arkansas runs through the SEC until they play LSU and Florida. Then Arkansas gets beat by a "slow and physical" Wisconsin team. I thought the SEC was about speed? Then a terrible Penn State team who struggled against any ranked team in the Big Ten beats Tennessee who beat a Top 5 California team in Knoxville. Hell Florida struggled against really bad SEC teams most of the year and now they play almost a perfect game against Ohio State.

The bottom line we need a playoff. Wisconsin deserved a change to prove they were a great team. They only lost to Michigan this year in a close game at that on the road. USC deserved a chance to overcome a couple of bad games against conference teams that are always geared up to play them. Boise State deserved a change to prove they could beat anyone in the country. The bowl system sucks and most of the games are not even watch able.

Peace

This is one time I totally agree with JRut.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

This kind of thinking constantly baffles me. If Boise St. were part of one of the "big conferences," do you really think they'd remain exactly as they are today? Of course they wouldn't. They'd be able to recruit better players, because they're part of a "big conference." They'd be consistently playing better opponents, which would make them a better team, just like it does for teams in one of those "big conferences." The notion that teams from a non-big conference couldn't possibly compete in a big conference, especially if they were part of that conference, is complete codswallop. BYU was just one team to demonstrate that this year.

I guess we'll be seeing Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, or Stanford in a BCS game next year....they're in the stonger conferences! Sure, teams change when their situtuations change, but that doesn't happen overnight. Recruiting better players doesn't come automatically in a big conference...you still have to get some nice wins to get them to sign.

BYU has most always been a team that competes well out of it's conference and has often been talked about when PAC-10 expansions have been discussed. They always schedule some tougher out of conference opponents. They've earned the respect of the bigger conferences on the field, not just 1 year in the media.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even a playoff will not really tell you who is better unless you play best of 5 or best of 7 (and that will never happen). Lessor teams pull off upsets all the time. That doesn't mean they're the better team.

A playoff is better than saying one conference is better than another conference and choosing the National Champion based on that. I do agree that certain conferences are better from top to bottom, but the SEC has had their teeth kicked in when they played tougher conferences. I do remember some very fast Miami teams getting beat up when they played a tougher Nebraska team for example. The top teams in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament fall all the time when they play other good teams. I just think it is not about conference it is about individual program success. Florida and Ohio State have been top teams for years. But it is not like every year Florida could beat the top Big Ten teams every single year considering that they did get beat a few times by a Michigan team and a Michigan State team in recent years. I just want at the very least a 4 team playoff in football and let these teams prove they belong. Even the 57th team in basketball has a beef. You will always have teams that feel they should have gotten a chance. That would be better than choosing only two teams and one is because they play in a "so-called" better conference.

Peace

[jeffpea]

Who says that Boise St. wouldn't beat Florida? Follow me here: Boise St. beat Oregon St. who beat USC who trounced Arkansas who beat Auburn who beat Florida .....so Boise St. REALLY is better than Florida!!!!

Keep in mind that Florida only got into the BCS Championship game because UCLA beat USC...otherwise they don't get a chance. (not as bad as when Nebraska got into the championship game vs. Miami because Rice kicked a last second/game winning field goal against TCU on the last day of the season - that gave Nebraska just enough computer points; the Huskers beat Rice earlier in the year)).

By the way, did you know that the Philadelphia Eagles played EIGHT games in between the Buckeyes' last game prior to the BCS Championship Game?

Lots of problems w/ the whole BCS.....JUST GET A PLAYOFF like everybody else!!!

[Adam]

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

They could have a 4 team play-off on the 2nd Saturday in December. BCS 4 @ BCS 1 and BCS 3 @ BCS 2.

Winners play each other in the BCS championship, losers go to their regularly scheduled bowls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

I do not know if that last statement is correct. Boise St. had to be in the top 8 to reach a BCS game. They did not play in a BCS game without being ranked pretty high.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

The best team does not win any NC all the time. Was the Florida Basketball team the best before they played and won the NC last year? At least they got a chance to prove something on the field. You can still have a bowl system and a playoff system. A playoff system would only affect a small percentage of teams and programs.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

So the SEC should get rid of it's post-season championship game and vote in its representative(s) to the BCS and Sugar Bowl?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I guess we'll be seeing Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, or Stanford in a BCS game next year....they're in the stonger conferences!

I wouldnt bet against it. Wake Forest finished at the bottom of the ACC last season. Northwestern has done it before, too.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

OK, Camron, you're starting to sound Old School when it comes to this subject. Don't have a play-off b/c somebody might suffer a freak, upset loss?
Where's is the logic in that statement?

So doesn't it mean it's possible for there to be an upset in the SEC championship game? If that happens, should the upset be ignored and the better team still represent the SEC in the BCS?