Its Bowl Season...

[soccer10k]

The other thing that works with college basketball is that the small teams actually have decent shots to win games. Look at the Missouri Valley Conference. They have a few solid teams that have made the past few NCAA tournaments and have beaten major conference teams each year. Name me one small college football conference that routinely beats solid top teams from the major conferences. Sure, Boise beat Oklahoma and Oregon State this year and Fresno State has beaten top teams in the past. But it doesn't happen all that often. For every college football upset of a major conference team you see 15 other games where the major conference team wins by 30+ points and are playing their second team for much of the second half.

 

Why should the champion of the Sun Belt get a shot at the title? Because they won their conference? Middle Tennessee St. and Troy St. tied for the title this year. Middle Tennessee St. lost to Big 12 Champion Oklahoma 59-0 and 45 of those points were scored in the first half. They also lost to Big East Champion Louisville 44-17. Troy gave Florida State a game (lost 24-17) as well as Georgia Tech (35-20) but lost to Nebraska 56-0. There is no reason to believe either of those could give a USC/Florida/OSU/etc. a game. The football players at the bigger programs are bigger, stronger, and faster than those at the smaller schools and there is a much bigger gap in talent in football than in basketball.

 

I agree with what goony has been saying. I love college football and the thing that makes it unique is that every game matters. Sure, rivalry game would still mean a lot but would Michigan-OSU meant as much if a National Title game berth was on the line? Of course not. Look at today with OSU-Wisconsin in basketball. It's a #4-#5 matchup and it's a big game but it doesn't mean all that much because both teams will be playing for the title come March. That's what makes college football unique. Every game matters and if you lose one, you're likely done.

 

He is right in calling out people with their opinions of how the National Title should be determined in football. Too many people have too many crazy ideas of how to determine who should be the National Champion and a majority of them are nowhere near realistic. When proposing a solution you have to consider all the factors and one of the huge factors in college football is money. You also have to consider what is in the best interest for all the conferences as well. It's great to propose an eight team playoff where the top 8 in the final BCS participate but there is no way the conferences would agree to that. They all think their conference champions should get an automatic spot which I definitely don't want because you could have a team like last year's Florida State team who lost four regular season games and was ranked in the 20's get a shot at the title.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The other thing that works with college basketball is that the small teams actually have decent shots to win games. Look at the Missouri Valley Conference. They have a few solid teams that have made the past few NCAA tournaments and have beaten major conference teams each year. Name me one small college football conference that routinely beats solid top teams from the major conferences. Sure, Boise beat Oklahoma and Oregon State this year and Fresno State has beaten top teams in the past. But it doesn't happen all that often. For every college football upset of a major conference team you see 15 other games where the major conference team wins by 30+ points and are playing their second team for much of the second half.

 

Why should the champion of the Sun Belt get a shot at the title? Because they won their conference? Middle Tennessee St. and Troy St. tied for the title this year. Middle Tennessee St. lost to Big 12 Champion Oklahoma 59-0 and 45 of those points were scored in the first half. They also lost to Big East Champion Louisville 44-17. Troy gave Florida State a game (lost 24-17) as well as Georgia Tech (35-20) but lost to Nebraska 56-0. There is no reason to believe either of those could give a USC/Florida/OSU/etc. a game. The football players at the bigger programs are bigger, stronger, and faster than those at the smaller schools and there is a much bigger gap in talent in football than in basketball.

 

Another reason is the dynamic of football v. basketball. Pulling off an upset in football requires performance from dozens of different players. In basketball it's half a dozen if not fewer. The individual has a much larger impact on a basketball game.

[Banedon]

Because you can't definitively tell me that Florida is the National Champion.

I can. Florida won all the games it had to and absolutely destroyed what was unanimously considered the best team in the land. If you expect every college football champion to beat every other contender for the title, we'll be playing games year-round.

 

That's ridiculous and not what I was implying. A single-elimination tournament would suffice. Florida lost a game. Boise State didn't. Yet Florida is the champ. That's not definitive.

[Banedon]

Why play if you can't win?

 

Because the notion that anybody can win is a myth. It's a nice little storyline to pretend Podunk University has a shot at the title, but they don't. We can pretend anybody has a shot at the NCAA BB title, but they don't. Year in and year out only a handful of teams have a real shot, and the same group of teams win over and over. Football is just the only sport that doesn't pretend otherwise.

 

People play because they like to play the game. Try telling the thousands of players that have no shot at the title that there is no reason to play. If winning a tourny title were all that matters, then everybody would being playing DII and DIII instead. Ivy League teams play every year without any hope of any sort of postseason play. They send guys to the NFL every season as well.

 

I think a big problem here is that so many people think the only thing that matters is the national champ. Rutgers finished their season on the highest note they've ever finished this year, achieving a level of attention and respect that was unprecedented in their football history. I don't see how arguing about whether they deserved a shot for the field of 12 would have been any better.

 

College football is unique in that 32 teams walk off the field feeling like champions at the end of their season.

 

I'd like the national championship cleaned up a bit myself, but the idea that they must create a huge tournament where anybody can win makes no sense to me. College basketball holds the nation's attention for 3 weekends a year. College football has huge games for 4 months.

 

I don't understand how anybody can say the only way to run a sports league is by finishing the season with a big tournament.

 

Because it's the way every other team sport anywhere is played, that's how. All sports have arguments over who should be in the playoffs and who shouldn't. But that doesn't mean that the tournament isn't valid.

 

If Boise State/Rutgers/Louisville felt like champions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

And frankly, when you dismiss the notion that anyone can win, you're missing the point. The point isn't whether they actually win, it's the opportunity. George Mason had the opportunity to go to the final four last year, and though they lost, they were provided the opportunity to challenge the larger schools, and in at least the case of UConn, won! Even the team they lost to was the eventual National Champion! That's far more relevant that winning the MPC Computers Bowl, or the Meineke Car Care Bowl. Sorry, but those teams don't feel like National Champions, they're just trying to enjoy what they're permitted to have as much as they can.

[Banedon]

There is no reason to believe either of those could give a USC/Florida/OSU/etc. a game. The football players at the bigger programs are bigger, stronger, and faster than those at the smaller schools and there is a much bigger gap in talent in football than in basketball.

 

This is where I think you and goony and others that are arguing this case are losing your argument. You're dismissing the chances of upsets out of hand. The thing is, the big schools have absolutely nothing to lose here then! If Podunk State can't be Ultra-Mega University, than why not let them play in the first round of a tourney and be done with it? Half the reason for the excitement around March Madness is the opportunity for a George Mason or a Wichita State to upset big teams like UConn. I think it's especially absurd to dismiss the smaller schools when Boise State won the game they did.

 

Do I think they would be Florida at this point. I doubt it. But again, that's not the point. The point is the opportunity. And you can't tell me that Florida-Boise State wouldn't draw an audience.

[Banedon]

I know this is my 4th post in a row, and I apologize for that...but I needed to put one more thought out here...

 

Part of the criticism here of the small schools is that they don't recruit big enough or talented enough guys to be able to compete. If I'm a top recruit and I want to have a shot at a National Championship, why would I want to go to a team like Boise State, when I know that even if they go undefeated, they won't have a chance? While a tournament won't get them the best in the country, it certainly should improve recruiting capabilities.

[Derwood]

The same few teams don't win the NCAA tourney every year. How soon do we forget Jimmy V's NCState team, or heck, last year's Florida team? How about Larry Bird leading Indiana St. to the finals? How about the 1985 Villanova team that won as a #8 seed?

[fiver]

Especially when it comes to the goodoleboys.

 

As annoying as it may be, there's a reason. The goodoleboys routinely field the best football teams, with the exception of ND. If you want the system to change, you have to do more than just complain.

 

Cuse,

 

You and I had a conversation much earlier in the year and you suggested that the SEC's true ability would be "exposed" during the bowl season. I truly wasn't going to open my mouth after the bowl season, but your hatred of the SEC continues to affect your ability to evaluate in my opinion.

 

The SEC was 6-3 in bowl games, and they legitimately could have been 9-0.

 

Alabama lost to Oklahoma State on a last minute field goal.

 

Kentucky beat Clemson 28-20.

 

South Carolina beat Houston 44-36.

 

Georgia beat Virginia Tech 31-24

 

Tennessee lost to Penn state, but the game was tied 10-10 with less than 10 minutes left. The Vols had possession, were driving down the field, fumbled the ball into hands of a Penn State player whom returned the fumble for a touchdown.

 

Auburn beat Nebraska 17-14

 

Arkansas lost to Wisconsin 14-17. Arkansas outgained the Badgers 367-203 but found a way to lose that game.

 

LSU beat Notre Dame 41-14

 

Florida beat Ohio State 41-14.

 

 

The SEC certainly was down for a few years, but I don't believe this year can be included in that statement.

[CuseCubFan69]

Especially when it comes to the goodoleboys.

 

As annoying as it may be, there's a reason. The goodoleboys routinely field the best football teams, with the exception of ND. If you want the system to change, you have to do more than just complain.

 

Cuse,

 

You and I had a conversation much earlier in the year and you suggested that the SEC's true ability would be "exposed" during the bowl season. I truly wasn't going to open my mouth after the bowl season, but your hatred of the SEC continues to affect your ability to evaluate in my opinion.

 

The SEC was 6-3 in bowl games, and they legitimately could have been 9-0.

 

Alabama lost to Oklahoma State on a last minute field goal.

 

Kentucky beat Clemson 28-20.

 

South Carolina beat Houston 44-36.

 

Georgia beat Virginia Tech 31-24

 

Tennessee lost to Penn state, but the game was tied 10-10 with less than 10 minutes left. The Vols had possession, were driving down the field, fumbled the ball into hands of a Penn State player whom returned the fumble for a touchdown.

 

Auburn beat Nebraska 17-14

 

Arkansas lost to Wisconsin 14-17. Arkansas outgained the Badgers 367-203 but found a way to lose that game.

 

LSU beat Notre Dame 41-14

 

Florida beat Ohio State 41-14.

 

 

The SEC certainly was down for a few years, but I don't believe this year can be included in that statement.

 

And Houston, Nebraska, Clemson and VTech could have won those games too making them 2-7. I said the SEC was solid. It's just not the end all of college football. I really wish the Big East could have played some SEC or Big 10 teams in the bowls to truely see but once again in college football we will never know and have to debate it.

 

Do you remember when a 12-0 Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship game and how it felt to be left out? Well, that's how I felt about Louisville.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Especially when it comes to the goodoleboys.

 

As annoying as it may be, there's a reason. The goodoleboys routinely field the best football teams, with the exception of ND. If you want the system to change, you have to do more than just complain.

 

Cuse,

 

You and I had a conversation much earlier in the year and you suggested that the SEC's true ability would be "exposed" during the bowl season. I truly wasn't going to open my mouth after the bowl season, but your hatred of the SEC continues to affect your ability to evaluate in my opinion.

 

The SEC was 6-3 in bowl games, and they legitimately could have been 9-0.

 

Alabama lost to Oklahoma State on a last minute field goal.

 

Kentucky beat Clemson 28-20.

 

South Carolina beat Houston 44-36.

 

Georgia beat Virginia Tech 31-24

 

Tennessee lost to Penn state, but the game was tied 10-10 with less than 10 minutes left. The Vols had possession, were driving down the field, fumbled the ball into hands of a Penn State player whom returned the fumble for a touchdown.

 

Auburn beat Nebraska 17-14

 

Arkansas lost to Wisconsin 14-17. Arkansas outgained the Badgers 367-203 but found a way to lose that game.

 

LSU beat Notre Dame 41-14

 

Florida beat Ohio State 41-14.

 

 

The SEC certainly was down for a few years, but I don't believe this year can be included in that statement.

 

And Houston, Nebraska, Clemson and VTech could have won those games too making them 2-7. I said the SEC was solid. It's just not the end all of college football. I really wish the Big East could have played some SEC or Big 10 teams in the bowls to truely see but once again in college football we will never know and have to debate it.

 

Do you remember when a 12-0 Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship game and how it felt to be left out? Well, that's how I felt about Louisville.

 

Louisville shouldn't have lost then. That's the nature of the system, if a team loses, they no longer control their destiny (sans Boise State).

[CuseCubFan69]

Especially when it comes to the goodoleboys.

 

As annoying as it may be, there's a reason. The goodoleboys routinely field the best football teams, with the exception of ND. If you want the system to change, you have to do more than just complain.

 

Cuse,

 

You and I had a conversation much earlier in the year and you suggested that the SEC's true ability would be "exposed" during the bowl season. I truly wasn't going to open my mouth after the bowl season, but your hatred of the SEC continues to affect your ability to evaluate in my opinion.

 

The SEC was 6-3 in bowl games, and they legitimately could have been 9-0.

 

Alabama lost to Oklahoma State on a last minute field goal.

 

Kentucky beat Clemson 28-20.

 

South Carolina beat Houston 44-36.

 

Georgia beat Virginia Tech 31-24

 

Tennessee lost to Penn state, but the game was tied 10-10 with less than 10 minutes left. The Vols had possession, were driving down the field, fumbled the ball into hands of a Penn State player whom returned the fumble for a touchdown.

 

Auburn beat Nebraska 17-14

 

Arkansas lost to Wisconsin 14-17. Arkansas outgained the Badgers 367-203 but found a way to lose that game.

 

LSU beat Notre Dame 41-14

 

Florida beat Ohio State 41-14.

 

 

The SEC certainly was down for a few years, but I don't believe this year can be included in that statement.

 

And Houston, Nebraska, Clemson and VTech could have won those games too making them 2-7. I said the SEC was solid. It's just not the end all of college football. I really wish the Big East could have played some SEC or Big 10 teams in the bowls to truely see but once again in college football we will never know and have to debate it.

 

Do you remember when a 12-0 Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship game and how it felt to be left out? Well, that's how I felt about Louisville.

 

Louisville shouldn't have lost then. That's the nature of the system, if a team loses, they no longer control their destiny (sans Boise State).

 

I agree and it's the fates I have a problem with. Also, if Rutgers did go undefeated they wouldn't have gone either as Florida or Michigan would have been selected instead.

[goonys evil twin]

Do you remember when a 12-0 Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship game and how it felt to be left out? Well, that's how I felt about Louisville.

 

Well then you really need to take a step back and think rationally, because a 1-loss Louisville team doesn't have anywhere near the ammo to complain that Auburn had.

 

There are 119 D1 teams and they play 12-13 games a year. There are always going to be "we just don't know" scenarios. Even a playoff system is going to be leaving people on outside claiming we'll never know.

[CuseCubFan69]

Do you remember when a 12-0 Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship game and how it felt to be left out? Well, that's how I felt about Louisville.

 

Well then you really need to take a step back and think rationally, because a 1-loss Louisville team doesn't have anywhere near the ammo to complain that Auburn had.

 

There are 119 D1 teams and they play 12-13 games a year. There are always going to be "we just don't know" scenarios. Even a playoff system is going to be leaving people on outside claiming we'll never know.

 

I agree that going undefeated gives you more of a claim to play in the big game. My point was being left out even though you won your conference and had the same record as one of the teams.

 

This is how you can't claim "you never know". You win your conference. This gets rid of the soft or tough out of conference schedule unless you're in the Big 10 when you don't play everyone and have no playoff.

[goonys evil twin]

This is how you can't claim "you never know". You win your conference. This gets rid of the soft or tough out of conference schedule unless you're in the Big 10 when you don't play everyone and have no playoff.

 

Why do people talk about the virtues of other sports' playoff scenarios but also claim you must win your conference to win in football? Basketball has regular season and tourny champs and then has the national tourny. And there's no need to win your conference with win a championship. Yet that sport lets you "prove it on the field".

 

 

No conference has a playoff, it's just one added game for more money, the same thing people bitch at the Big Ten about with the BCS controversy.

[CuseCubFan69]

This is how you can't claim "you never know". You win your conference. This gets rid of the soft or tough out of conference schedule unless you're in the Big 10 when you don't play everyone and have no playoff.

 

Why do people talk about the virtues of other sports' playoff scenarios but also claim you must win your conference to win in football? Basketball has regular season and tourny champs and then has the national tourny. And there's no need to win your conference with win a championship. Yet that sport lets you "prove it on the field".

 

 

No conference has a playoff, it's just one added game for more money, the same thing people bitch at the Big Ten about with the BCS controversy.

 

Actually for many years college basketball made it a requirement that you had to win your conference to be able to go to the NCAA's. Since college football teams only play 12 games or so the conference champion is the best way to go.

 

How can you say no conference has a playoff? It's a 1 game playoff. I agree 100% it's just for money but one nice thing it does is force 2 teams to play that may have not played during the regular season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The same few teams don't win the NCAA tourney every year. How soon do we forget Jimmy V's NCState team, or heck, last year's Florida team? How about Larry Bird leading Indiana St. to the finals? How about the 1985 Villanova team that won as a #8 seed?

 

Last year's Florida team started out like 16-0 and was ranked #1 for an extended period of time. Villanova and NC State are both power conference teams.

[Derwood]

The same few teams don't win the NCAA tourney every year. How soon do we forget Jimmy V's NCState team, or heck, last year's Florida team? How about Larry Bird leading Indiana St. to the finals? How about the 1985 Villanova team that won as a #8 seed?

 

Last year's Florida team started out like 16-0 and was ranked #1 for an extended period of time. Villanova and NC State are both power conference teams.

 

Penn State is from a power conference, but wouldn't you find it alarming if they made it to the tourney this year and won it?

[soccer10k]

The same few teams don't win the NCAA tourney every year. How soon do we forget Jimmy V's NCState team, or heck, last year's Florida team? How about Larry Bird leading Indiana St. to the finals? How about the 1985 Villanova team that won as a #8 seed?

 

Last year's Florida team started out like 16-0 and was ranked #1 for an extended period of time. Villanova and NC State are both power conference teams.

 

Minor detail but Florida was never ranked #1. They were behind Duke since Duke started the year out ranked much higher than Florida. The last three undefeated teams (Duke, Florida, and another team that I don't remember) all lost on the same day. I think Florida was ranked #2 for a bit but not sure how long.

[soccer10k]

There is no reason to believe either of those could give a USC/Florida/OSU/etc. a game. The football players at the bigger programs are bigger, stronger, and faster than those at the smaller schools and there is a much bigger gap in talent in football than in basketball.

 

This is where I think you and goony and others that are arguing this case are losing your argument. You're dismissing the chances of upsets out of hand. The thing is, the big schools have absolutely nothing to lose here then! If Podunk State can't be Ultra-Mega University, than why not let them play in the first round of a tourney and be done with it? Half the reason for the excitement around March Madness is the opportunity for a George Mason or a Wichita State to upset big teams like UConn. I think it's especially absurd to dismiss the smaller schools when Boise State won the game they did.

 

Do I think they would be Florida at this point. I doubt it. But again, that's not the point. The point is the opportunity. And you can't tell me that Florida-Boise State wouldn't draw an audience.

 

Of course I'm dismissing the chances of upsets in college football and I do it for good reason. It's because they don't happen very often. That's why when UC Davis goes to Stanford and wins, it garners national attention. Same thing with Montana State beats Colorado. It's a big deal in football because it doesn't happen very often. There is a reason there is Division I-AA in football and not in basketball. They need separate divisions because the I-AA schools generally can't compete with the I-A schools.

 

You don't see this in basketball. When UC Davis beats Stanford in basketball, the upset gets attention locally but it doesn't get national attention. When Butler gets victories over Notre Dame, Indiana, Tennessee, and Purdue, it's not surprising anymore. Gonzaga upsetting major schools? Not surprising anymore. And why is that? It happens all the time.

 

People like March Madness because the small schools upset the major conference schools and it happens all the time. But if there was only one, maybe two, upsets by small schools in the tournament every year, do you think it would be as enjoyable to watch the first round? Of course not. If you had a playoff and included the likes of Middle Tennessee St, Troy, Houston, etc., nobody would watch the games that pitted those teams against the likes of Oklahoma, Florida, and USC because the games would be blowouts. 9 times out of 10 (at least) the big school would blow out the small school. This includes the new media darling Boise State as well. Look at last year. Boise State traveled to Georgia to play. The result? The Bulldogs outgained the Broncos 574-292 and were up 38-0 at one point and won 48-13. Georgia won the SEC and Boise State won the WAC last year. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have wanted to see that matchup again.

 

College basketball is completely different from college football and you can't say "well, a playoff works in college basketball so it should be used in college football as well". It doesn't work that way. I love college football and the main reason is because the regular season actually matters. The Cardinals this year lost 78 games in the regular season and even the best team will still lose 60. The Florida Gators finished tied for third in the SEC last year but caught fire in the tournament. The Pittsburgh Steelers were the last team in the playoffs last year in the AFC but won the Super Bowl. Were they the best team last year? No. But they were the best during a four game span in the playoffs. That's where college football is different. You can be assured that the team who wins the title is one of the top 3 or 4 teams in any given year. Compare this to my other examples of the Cardinals (13th best record), Steelers (tied for 5th with 6 teams so could be anywhere from 5th to 10th) and Gators (considering their 3rd seed in the tourney, somewhere between 9th and 12th though they got a higher seed than LSU solely because Florida won their conference tournament). I can go on if you would like me to.

 

I like the fact that one of the top teams every year will win the college football national championship and not one that happens to get hot over a short stretch of the year. Every game matters. Don't get me wrong because I'm not saying I don't like the other sports. What I am saying is that I like college football's system because it's unique. I love that every game matters and it makes me want to watch every single Saturday because a team's National Title hopes could end every week. UCLA's victory over USC wouldn't have meant as much if there was a playoff because it wouldn't have ended the Trojans' shot at a National Title. It would have meant a ton because it's a rivalry game but the big national story was that it opened the door for Florida to make the title game. And that what makes college football different and that's why I love it.

[TruffleShuffle]

The same few teams don't win the NCAA tourney every year. How soon do we forget Jimmy V's NCState team, or heck, last year's Florida team? How about Larry Bird leading Indiana St. to the finals? How about the 1985 Villanova team that won as a #8 seed?

 

Last year's Florida team started out like 16-0 and was ranked #1 for an extended period of time. Villanova and NC State are both power conference teams.

 

Penn State is from a power conference, but wouldn't you find it alarming if they made it to the tourney this year and won it?

 

I'll be dead before a team that loses to Stony Brook and SE Louisiana wins the NCAA Tournament!

[Andy]

WNDU-TV just reported that Darius Walker is declaring for the NFL draft.

 

I have no idea why, but James Aldridge is going to be better than Darius was anyway.

[CubColtPacer]

WNDU-TV just reported that Darius Walker is declaring for the NFL draft.

 

I have no idea why, but James Aldridge is going to be better than Darius was anyway.

 

Well, uh, good luck to him I guess. I have absolutely no idea why he would do this either (I can't think his pro prospects are that high) but you're right, ND might be better off without him at this point. Walker's running style would not fit the offense very well next year, as ND will need a guy who can run inside just a bit more than Walker does and can get a more consistent yardage, instead of going for 0, 0, and then 10 or 20 with a young QB.

[adamb0719]

WNDU-TV just reported that Darius Walker is declaring for the NFL draft.

 

I have no idea why, but James Aldridge is going to be better than Darius was anyway.

 

Good. Aldridge should be playing. If he stayed it would be comparable to (though not as bad, at least Walker has some talent) the Grant/Jones debacle under Ty, IMO.

 

Do you think TT may make a move back to RB?

[Andy]

WNDU-TV just reported that Darius Walker is declaring for the NFL draft.

 

I have no idea why, but James Aldridge is going to be better than Darius was anyway.

 

Good. Aldridge should be playing. If he stayed it would be comparable to (though not as bad, at least Walker has some talent) the Grant/Jones debacle under Ty, IMO.

 

Do you think TT may make a move back to RB?

Yes, and I think it's the main reason he's taking his 5th year. I expect some sort of TT/Aldridge setup, with Prince and Armando Allen seeing time at some points.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Some early top 25 lists for next season:

 

CFN's Top 25: USC #1, LSU #2, Texas #3 (and UCLA #9 :shock:)

 

Sporting News.com's Matt Hayes' Top 10: USC #1, Wisconsin #2, Florida #3 (and UCLA #6 :shock: :shock:)

 

CNNSI's Top 25: USC #1, LSU #2. Florida #3 (UCLA #24 - Cuse would like this one with 4 Big East teams in the top-25 and two in the top 5)