OT: Wow (BCS Championship)
 

Except for the first 15 seconds, Florida owned every aspect of that game. Simply dominating.

Congrats to the Gators!

I just got home from my game a few minutes ago. However, we got an update on our way home. Reading the title of this thread...I thought I missed a major, major come back! ;)

I gotta agree Cam - don't think it was what anyone expected.

And Jack did us proud! Being the crew chief for a national championship game is a once in a lifetime thing, and I'm glad he got the chance. Now that it's done, he can get back to focusing on really important things like HS basketball! :D :D

I know -- OT?!?!? OT?!?!? What were you smokin' Camron?

Oh, Off Topic! Gotcha...

It appears that the Big Ten was not as good as people thought. Both Michigan and Ohio State got handled in their bowl games.

I say give the National Championship to Boise State. The precedent was set when BYU got it by being the only unbeaten, untied team with the same 13-0 record back in 1984.

Wait a minute. The SEC was 1-2 verse the Big Ten during bowl games. This game tonight was the only moment the SEC won a game against the Big Ten. Wisconsin beat Arkansas and a very average Penn State (not ranked and could not beat any of the top Big Ten teams this year) team beat Tennessee. A 17th ranked Tennessee team at that.

Peace

The WAC went 3-1 with the only loss by 1 point.

People need to start changing their thinking. The so-called "power conferences" are disappearing with the NCAA reduction in D1 scholarships. The talent pool is getting spread out to more schools. The rise of the WAC in football and the Missouri Valley in basketball are good examples of this.

People need to stop assuming one team is better than another or that one conference is superior simply because of the name and tenure.
The #1 place that this unfair bias shows up is in preseason polls. Teams should have to play four or five games before they are eligible to be ranked.

The particilar record of a conference in bowls doesn't mean a whole lot. For example, Tennessee had the 5th best record in the SEC...not one of their better teams. Hardly worthy of basing much on.

So what if the WAC goes 3-1....aside from Boise St, they didn't really accomplish much....their 2nd place team played the 6th team in the PAC which is usually only 2-3 strong (not exactly earth shattering). And their 3rd place team playing the 5th place Mountain West team...(a pretty weak conference).

Except for Boise St., the other WAC teams would be at/near the bottom if they competed in the big conferences....they wouldn't have enough wins to even go to a bowl game.

Also, does anyone have any delusion that Boise St. could have made a game against Florida? Maybe better than Ohio St. did...(never mind that the popular argument was that BSU should have been in the game rather than Florida). BSU's schedule wasn't half the schedule Fla. played. No way they'd have been undefeated if they played in the SEC or Big Ten.

And no way George Mason makes it to the Final Four either, huh? :p

When given the chance these smaller programs continue to rise to the occasion despite the constant nay-sayers.

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.

In the final AP poll, Boise State was ranked #5; in the final Coaches poll, Boise State was ranked #6.

This is a true statement too.

USC
USC
USC

PAC-10 football is way underrated.

Amen, Brother! The WAC and MWC should be getting more respect than they currently are. :mad:

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.

Ya see Camron, Nevada wants to point out these wins over "power conference" teams, so the WAC looks good. But he doesn't otherwise want them to be recognized as "power conferences" anymore. He likes using the term for his purposes. :rolleyes:

The problem is, we'll never know. :(

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

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

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.

This is one time I totally agree with JRut.

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.

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

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to a playoff. I'm saying it will not solve the issues that exist. It will only move them around.

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

You mean like...maybe...the NFL?

Playoffs works for them.

Or every other level of NCAA sports and every pro sports that has a playoff system. College Football is the only sport where the teams play of a championship based on the polls. If polls were involved in Baseball, St. Louis would have never been in the World Series. Now they are World Champions.

Peace

c-h-a-n-c-e
c-h-a-n-c-e
w-a-t-c-h-a-b-l-e (no space)

Actually, I think they only had to be top 12 to get in.

Well they were in the Top 10 when the bowls were announced. Also Wisconsin could not play in a BCS Bowl because that would have been 3 Big Ten teams and that is not allowed. Then again, Wisconsin beat a big time SEC team in their bowl game and ended the season with one lost. I would have liked to see Wisconsin battle it out in a playoff.

Peace

You mean Wisconsin (tied for 2nd in the Big Ten) beat the 2nd place team in the SEC??? by 3 points. Sounds like it was a good match up that could have gone either way. Perhaps both of them deserved a shot.

If you ask enough people, you could get reasonable arguments to put any one of 20+ teams in an 8 team playoff.

You mean like the....um....NCAA basketball playoffs? A lot of statistical probabilities have gone right down the dumper in the first two rounds. And the public loves it.

Playoffs work for them.

And don't bring up what happened to my beloved Yankees in the playoffs the last few years....

I generally like playoffs. I just don't they'll solve the problems as completely as the proponents claim or would like.

No matter what practical number you chose, someone is going to feel that were unfairly left out. A lot will whine about the seeding....just like basketball. How many times, due to the bracket ordering, has the "real" championship game been in the semis...you know...the two teams people really think are the best?

Football is just more likely to have more upsets than basketball due to the few number of scores in any given game.

No worry on the Yankees front, I couldn't care less about them or baseball.

Did you mean to say that you <b>could</b> care less about baseball.....or did you really mean to say that you <b>love</b> the Yankees?:D

Hard to read his mind, but the proper usage of that expression is <b>couldn't</b> care less, denoting that one cares so little that it's impossible to care any less.

A noble sentiment, or lack thereof, concerning the Bronx Bombers.

If the speed of the SEC was so outstanding, Wisconsin should not have been able to stay on the field. Arkansas was in the SEC Championship game and would have likely had an opportunity to play for the BCS Championship if you listen to all the experts about how good the SEC was this year. My point is Wisconsin fits the description of a slow and big team, but they beat a team that was supposed to be fast a talented more than most Big Ten teams. Arkansas should have won by 40.

So. Also I seriously doubt there are 20 teams that would have a 1 or 2 loss seasons. At least at the very end no one would be complaining about who won the NC. They are still talking about how Boise State could have split the NC. You do not split anything at the D1-AA level. You know who won and that is it.

Peace

There is a perfectly serviceable word to describe the team that gets beat in a fluke game during the playoffs: LOSER. Baseball and basketball lend themselves nicely to best-of-seven serieses and eliminate, to a large degree, the fluke factor. Football is an entirely different animal. You've got one shot to beat the other team, and if you're really the better team, you'll find a way to get it done. If not, you're not really the better team. Any whining to the contrary is just coulda, shoulda, wouldas.

The old system was fine. The Rose Bowl is now an after-thought, when it used to be the biggest game of the year. The other bowl games have sold out to sponsors.

In 2010 they will probably have the Playtex Cross-Your-Heart Bowl and the Trojan-Enz Bowl added as the Semi-final games and the Listerine Mint Fresh Bowl for the national championship. Is that what we want?

Why do we need to have playoffs? Isn't the debate about which team is best half of the fun?

Is Florida really the best team in the country? Ask the Auburn players who's better.

People today can't stand to have anything unsettled. Too much effort, I guess.

No, honestly. It's not fun. It's a stupid debate. It's so obvious that a playoff system would be better than the current system that the debate isn't fun. It simply points out the closed-mindedness (or greed) of the big-wigs that are opposed to it. There's not a single good reason for NOT having a championship settled on the field; as it is in every other NCAA sport in every other NCAA division.

I'd much rather leave a borderline team out of an 8- or 16-team field, than to leave a deserving team out of a 2-team field.

Why is the debate between perfection and the status quo? Just because a playoff wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean it wouldn't be a huge improvement over the current mess.

Obviously the people who run things disagree with you, for *whatever* reason (and yes, last I heard "making money" remains a legal and valid reason in most if not all 50 states).

If they agreed with you they would do in January for ncaa d1 football what they do in March for ncaa d1 basketball.

Obviously. Doesn't mean they're right.

And for NCAA D2 football, and for NCAA D3 football, and for every other NCAA sport in every NCAA division.

If a BCS winner is such a great idea, why don't they do it any other sport? It's so obvious, it's ridiculous.

Doesn't mean you're right either.

Just means that you - armed with all the information of a casual observer - disagree with others who understand the issue fully. Please, give us the benefit of your wisdom.

What is the obviously ridiculous answer?

The NCAA needs to just come out and say the reason there is no play-offs is because of the money the current bowl system provides to member schools. But don't insult our intelligence with excuses about mid-terms and finals and time away from school when you have 1-AA, DII, & DIII schools participating in a play-off system that extends their seasons to 14-15 games.

I do completely agree with this statement. Anytime this issue is brought up by the NCAA or people associated with NCAA schools, they claim it would be hard on the kids when every other level plays just as long if not longer.

Peace

No more callers, please!! We have a winner!

The funny thing is, I don't even care that much about college football, and I really don't care about the pathetic slate of "postseason" games that we get every year. I just think it's hysterical that they run playoffs for every other sport in every other division; but to have playoffs for D1 football would be a hardship on the players and hurt their academics.

This is because the tournament committee always makes things easier for Duke.

Additionally, it is ridiculous to have all these games after New Year's.

from the football forum
 

Look at his left leg.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/310/injury300lt5.jpg

Many people think that one game determines which team is the best. All that a one game championship proves is that this team was better on this day. This is just as arbitrary as a vote, but doesn't require any brain cells.

When the UPI and AP often had differing opinions for the national champion, it sparked debate that made for interest in the various bowl games.

When you put in playoffs, it cheapens the meaning of the regular season accomplishments, to the absurd point that winning a league championship no longer matters. Last season, the NY Islanders hockey team had a chance to win their Division by winning their final game, but the "experts" were saying they should lose on purpose so they'd get an easier first round playoff opponent.

Don't let this happen to college football.

You mean other than Div 1A, Div 2, and Div 3 college football?

This is just a pet peeve of mine. I miss when the Rose Bowl was the big game on New Year's Day and almost everyone in the country sat around watching the Big 10 champion against the Pac 10 Champion. New Year's Day used to be one of the biggest football watching days of the year, and a prime Father-Son couch potato moment. You'd have the Cotton Bowl and the Orange Bowl and the Sugar Bowl, and each game could have a bearing on the final polls. Now New Year's Day football is irrelevant.

I also hate that every championship has been moved to prime time, and if schools in session the litlle kids that live in the East can't watch. I also don't think we have to have a national champion in everything we do, from kindergarten on up.

Sorry for the rant.

Well you should be sorry.

Scrappy says we NEED a national championship determined by a playoff tourney. He has some inside information that he won't share, but somehow it's obvious why we need it and he's serious about it.

From what I can tell his thinking is that everybody else does it that way, so he's going to hold his breath until they do it for ncaa d1 football too.

Who knows. :shrug:

Please. I never said that. What I said was that I really don't even care about college football that much. I watch maybe a half dozen games a year. What I also said is that a playoff system is obviously a better mechanism for finding a national champion than the current system.

Not everyone else, but the very same organization. Not some different group; the same group -- the NCAA!! If choosing a national champion by polls was really such a great idea for college football, don't you think they'd use it for the rest of their divisions? No, of course not. :rolleyes:

There, I rest my case.

According to Scrappy we NEED it because everyone else* does it that way too.

* Obviously I don't mean every single other organization on the planet - for instance the American Medical Association or the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers don't determine a national champ. But I would have thought Scrappy might be able to infer what my definition of "everyone" was simply by the context. Glad I could clear this up for him.

Good, that means you're done arguing about it. :)

What is this fixation you have with "NEED"? I have never said that anybody "needs" to do anything. I'm merely saying that a playoff system is better, and obviously better, for choosing a nat'l champion than a poll system. There's no "need" about it.

Oh, you got me there. I thought you meant that the American Design Drafting Association International chose its nat'l champion through a poll. :rolleyes:

Not hardly... ;) OK, I stand corrected. Of course they don't NEED it, it's just that "It's so obvious that a playoff system would be better than the current system that the debate isn't fun."

Pls go back and substitute "It's so obvious that a playoff system would be better than the current system that the debate isn't fun" for all instances of NEED. It's quite obvious that's what you thought.

As I said, glad i could straighten you out.

Hey, you're out of order! This whole thread's out of order!

I agree with Scrappy.

So there.

Can you imagine what it would be like around here in March if the NCAA chose it's D1 basketball champion by poll?

The fanboys, the fanboys.....:eek: