College Football - Week of 9/8

[Flames24Rulz]

http://www.siuc.edu/media/0708Galleries/Football/090807/images/SIU%20%20052.jpg

 

Uh yeah, that was the best comeback win I have ever been to.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/sp/getty/4e/fullj.getty-76540264cg021_virginia_tech.jpg

 

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/sp/getty/81/fullj.getty-76540264cg020_virginia_tech.jpg

 

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/sp/getty/dd/fullj.getty-76540264cg019_virginia_tech.jpg

 

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070909/capt.0e6032d2e1d64a788fa52551735bdd88.virginia_tech_lsu_football_lawh116.jpg

[OleMissCub]

What did you guys who went to Ole Miss from Mizzou think of the Groving experience...and our womenfolk?

[da bears]

Alright, where to start on my trip to Ole Miss.

 

We got there Friday night and went to the square and to the Library, which is a huge bar. Ten bucks entrance, and additional charges for beer and liquor (disappointing, we have a bar at Mizzou on Friday nights that's $10 all you can drink from 9-12). We ended up going back to our hotel at 6 in the morning (long story, not really a good one).

 

Woke up at 10:30, drove to the grove at about 12, and started up the tailgating. Lots of Mizzou fans down there (for how Mizzou usually travels). I'd say about 4-5 thousand. Anyways, the Grove is as advertised. Ive never seen so many tailgating tents in my life. All had elaborate set ups, lots of food, and most importantly, lots and lots and lots of hot girls in sun dresses.

 

They also have these things called the Hotty Toddy Potty's, which could be the greatest invention ever. Its just a large bathroom in like an RV type thing? I dont even know how to explain it. But they were awesome.

 

We saw the walk of champions, which was cool as well. Eventually we went into the stadium after six hours of drinking. I wasn't too bad, however. Mizzou has to get their acts together. They're trying to give us Mizzou fans heart attacks. There was actually two sections of Mizzou fans, and at one point the Mizzou fans in the end zone chanted M-I-Z! to which those on the side line yelled back Z-O-U! It was pretty cool.

 

After the game we went to some bar called City Grocery. That was a good time. Anyways, enough rambling, here's one last story.

 

We were leaving the bar at around 12:30- when they were kicking everybody out. We were walking around downtown when we asked some natives where we could go to eat, and they said some pizza place. We start walking over there, and I see ESPN anchor John Anderson. So I yelled, "Hey John Anderson, where can I go eat some pizza?" He responded I dont know Im not from here. The funny part was he was wasted. We eventually got a picture with him.

 

So a great time overall, and I'm pissed that this was the last time we play them. The Grove is definitely a must go to for everyone who loves college football, tailgating, hot women, ect.

[soccer10k]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

[soccer10k]

Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll):

 

2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6

Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8

 

2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3

 

2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3

Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6

 

2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3

 

2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6

USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10

 

I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

 

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

[OleMissCub]

They also have these things called the Hotty Toddy Potty's, which could be the greatest invention ever. Its just a large bathroom in like an RV type thing? I dont even know how to explain it. But they were awesome.

 

Ya, those are fun. One time when I was in undergrad, my girlfriend was pretty drunk from a long day of groving and so she had to go to the bathroom, so I walked her over to the HottyToddy Poddy and she went inside and I was waiting outside. Well I kept waiting and waiting and she never came out...it was like 15 minutes and eventually some woman walked up to me and said "are you waiting for a girl with blonde hair and a black dress...("yes, why?)...because she passed out in the stall and we are trying to wake her up"

 

Ya...that was "interesting".

 

 

After the game we went to some bar called City Grocery. That was a good time. Anyways, enough rambling, here's one last story.

 

I must have seen you there probably. That's the law school bar. I regret not giving you my number before you left. I thought about it Friday night, I was like "dang, I should have given those Mizzou guys my cell."

[da bears]

They also have these things called the Hotty Toddy Potty's, which could be the greatest invention ever. Its just a large bathroom in like an RV type thing? I dont even know how to explain it. But they were awesome.

 

Ya, those are fun. One time when I was in undergrad, my girlfriend was pretty drunk from a long day of groving and so she had to go to the bathroom, so I walked her over to the HottyToddy Poddy and she went inside and I was waiting outside. Well I kept waiting and waiting and she never came out...it was like 15 minutes and eventually some woman walked up to me and said "are you waiting for a girl with blonde hair and a black dress...("yes, why?)...because she passed out in the stall and we are trying to wake her up"

 

Ya...that was "interesting".

 

 

After the game we went to some bar called City Grocery. That was a good time. Anyways, enough rambling, here's one last story.

 

I must have seen you there probably. That's the law school bar. I regret not giving you my number before you left. I thought about it Friday night, I was like "dang, I should have given those Mizzou guys my cell."

 

You probably did see me there. I was wearing a black Mizzou shirt and a hat. We were sitting at a table right in front of the entrance for the outside balcony. We were probably kind of obnoxious as well.

[OleMissCub]

You probably did see me there. I was wearing a black Mizzou shirt and a hat. We were sitting at a table right in front of the entrance for the outside balcony. We were probably kind of obnoxious as well.

 

Naw, y'all weren't that bad. I was very pleased with the Mizzou fans. Y'all were all very nice and I enjoyed the spirit of the rivalry. I sincerely hope the AD's continue the series between the schools.

[da bears]

You probably did see me there. I was wearing a black Mizzou shirt and a hat. We were sitting at a table right in front of the entrance for the outside balcony. We were probably kind of obnoxious as well.

 

Naw, y'all weren't that bad. I was very pleased with the Mizzou fans. Y'all were all very nice and I enjoyed the spirit of the rivalry. I sincerely hope the AD's continue the series between the schools.

 

I agree. It was a blast going down there. I would definitely do it again, and I hate driving. All the Ole Miss fans I met were really really nice. And we tried to be very nice as well. It was a very fun two year series, and all the Mizzou fans that were down there talked about how they would love to do it again.

[dew1679666265]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

 

There are 8-4 teams and worse getting into bowls all the time. They even get into BCS bowls on occasion. Chances are those teams will get eliminated early and the real teams will move on. If they win the National Championship, then they'll have earned the right by beating a number of 0-1 loss teams.

 

I want the most deserving team to win the title, not the team that a bunch of people who don't even watch all the games think is the best.

[Mephistopheles]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

 

Then you're blind. If there was a playoff last season the most likely winner had two losses (USC).

[dew1679666265]

Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll):

 

2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6

Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8

 

2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3

 

2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3

Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6

 

2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3

 

2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6

USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10

 

I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

 

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

 

Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective.

 

And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument.

 

That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias.

[soccer10k]

Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll):

 

2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6

Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8

 

2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3

 

2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3

Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6

 

2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3

 

2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6

USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10

 

I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

 

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

 

Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective.

 

And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument.

 

That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias.

 

I'd agree with you in that the bias is likely for certain teams. I'd say the only conference that gets a bias would probably be the SEC but it's usually only a team or two within the conference that is actually overrated on any given year.

[soccer10k]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

 

Then you're blind. If there was a playoff last season the most likely winner had two losses (USC).

 

I guess USC shouldn't have lost to Oregon State and UCLA then. Beat UCLA and they get into the title game. Tough luck. Same goes for Michigan (though they only had one loss). If they beat OSU, they're in the title game. Same goes for LSU. Beat Auburn and they get into the SEC title game where they get their shot at a rematch with Florida. Too bad they didn't. That's how it goes.

[chuckywang]

My main problem with a playoff system is that it would mean the end of the tradition of bowl games. No more Rose Bowls, no more Orange Bowls, no more Cotton Bowls.

 

It's a shame because I also think a playoff championship format would also be the most exciting event in sports.

[dew1679666265]

My main problem with a playoff system is that it would mean the end of the tradition of bowl games. No more Rose Bowls, no more Orange Bowls, no more Cotton Bowls.

 

It's a shame because I also think a playoff championship format would also be the most exciting event in sports.

 

There are some proposals out there for a playoff format that actually plays the bowls as playoff games.

 

For instance, Tennessee could play Michigan in the Citrus Bowl for the right to head to the Rose Bowl and play USC. The games would be at bowl sites and could actually make the smaller bowls (Music City, Motor City, etc) much more popular because they would have some national relevance.

[dew1679666265]

Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll):

 

2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6

Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8

 

2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3

 

2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3

Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6

 

2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3

 

2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6

USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10

 

I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

 

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

 

Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective.

 

And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument.

 

That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias.

 

I'd agree with you in that the bias is likely for certain teams. I'd say the only conference that gets a bias would probably be the SEC but it's usually only a team or two within the conference that is actually overrated on any given year.

 

That I agree with. There is definitely a team by team bias. I've never really seen a complete conference bias. When's the last time Illinois, Kentucky or Vandy were overrated for instance?

[CuseCubFan69]

Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll):

 

2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6

Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8

 

2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3

 

2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3

Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6

 

2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3

 

2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6

USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10

 

I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

 

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

 

Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective.

 

And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument.

 

That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias.

 

You are right, it is more specific teams than regions as the favoritism due to past performance and history but if you notice, their ain't no bias towards any eastern schools, positive that is. We might pop ahead of a surprise Big 10 team that is doing well when not predicted to do so but that's about it.

[Derwood]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

 

guess you would be in favor of just taking the top 4 teams in each League for the playoffs in baseball, right? no way you'd want to see an 83 win team from the NL Central go to the postseason

[dew1679666265]

Ok, I didn't go back 40 years, but I did go back to 2002. I took Big East and Pac-10 teams (since you've said they're the ones that get screwed the most) that finished in the top 10 right above a "good ole boy team." Here are the results (as per final AP poll):

 

2002 - USC 10-2 rank: 5 K St 10-2 rank : 6

Washington St 9-2 rank: 7 Oklahoma 10-2 rank: 8

 

2003 - USC 10-1 rank: 2 LSU 11-1 rank: 3

 

2004 - USC 12-0 rank: 1 Auburn 12-0 rank: 3

Cal 10-1 rank: 4 Texas 10-1 rank: 6

 

2005 - USC 12-1 rank: 2 Penn State 11-1 rank: 3

 

2006 - Louisville 11-1 rank: 5 Wisconsin 11-1 rank: 6

USC 10-2 rank: 8 Auburn 10-2 rank: 10

 

I'm sensing a pattern here, looking back over the old rankings. It's not so much a southern/midwestern bias, so much as a particular team bias. Michigan, Texas, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Florida and Ohio State were all mainstays every year in the top 10. That includes 2 midwestern teams, 2 southern teams, 2 southwestern teams and one pacific coast team.

 

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

 

Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective.

 

And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument.

 

That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias.

 

You are right, it is more specific teams than regions as the favoritism due to past performance and history but if you notice, their ain't no bias towards any eastern schools, positive that is. We might pop ahead of a surprise Big 10 team that is doing well when not predicted to do so but that's about it.

 

What do you mean by eastern exactly? Miami had plenty of favoritism shown when it was in the Big East, and still it gets plenty of benefit of the doubt. It's also an eastern located school.

Virginia Tech is also in the east and gets plenty of play in the media. Most isn't undeserved, but they certainly get the nod when there's some question.

If you're talking about the northeast specifically, then yeah, they aren't given much benefit of the doubt. But, outside of Rutgers, there aren't any truly good teams in the northeast I can think of. You've got Buffalo, Syracuse, Rhode Island, Pitt, Connecticut, BC (who should get more credit), etc. up there. The rest of the Big East teams are South Florida (south), Cincinnatti (midwest) and Louisville (technically Kentucky's the south).

 

The eastern teams who have a positive tradition (Miami, Va Tech) get as much favoritism as the midwest teams with history. Problem is, most of your truly eastern teams are Wake Forest, BC, UNC, NC State, etc. that haven't been very good and with a couple exceptions (Wake and BC) still aren't yet. I'll give you that BC definitely should get more publicity, but Wake and Rutgers have competed seriously for their conference once. That's it.

 

It's almost purely a team bias. It's too spread out to be anything else.

[soccer10k]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

 

guess you would be in favor of just taking the top 4 teams in each League for the playoffs in baseball, right? no way you'd want to see an 83 win team from the NL Central go to the postseason

 

Well, college football is different but...

 

I think it was in another thread and I was talking with dew about a playoff system and I said something along the lines of that it was complete crap that sub-.500 teams make the NBA playoffs and that 83 win Cardinals and 82 win Padres and likely an 83 or 84 win NL Central team will make it this year when there are clearly more deserving teams. I wouldn't care if David Stern came out and announced that the NBA was only going to allow four teams from each conference rather than eight.

 

But the two sports are different and you can't really compare college football and baseball. Even the top teams in baseball are only going to play a little over .600 ball. But in college football you will get three or four teams every year that finish with zero or one losses. I don't think a college football team that loses 3 or 4 of its 12 games should have a chance to win a national championship. I don't care if they played a brutal non-con because they proved with that non-con that they couldn't compete with the top teams.

[Derwood]

then why have conferences at all?

[soccer10k]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

[Derwood]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

 

college football