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.

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.

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.

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.

What's the point in giving Troy or Temple a shot? What's the benefit? The fact that basketball does it is hardly justification. The minute you start handing out invites to every conf champ, is the minute you reduce the incentive for teams to schedule tough OOC games. A tough OOC schedule not only increases your odds of losing that game, but it can hurt you the rest of the year. Nobody wants to see Florida, LSU, USC or OSU playing Central Michigan or BYU in December. And that is part of the reason why this won't work. And why should it happen? Because you say so? I think people need to get away from the "should" talk, as it's going to get you no where. Come up with a system that would work (ie, satisfy all participants economic interests), and you might have something. But simply being a D1 school doesn't guarantee you a shot at the national football title. There's no inherent right to such a thing. Schools that want to contend for a title invest in their program and take the necessary steps to make it possible. And before we get into the complaints about money getting in the way of what's right, stop. There aren't many successful ventures in this world, and especially in this country, that don't take economic factors into account. If we want big exciting matchups available for our viewing pleasure in various formats, you're going to have to just deal with the fact that money plays a huge role here. I just generally disagree with your whole philosophy on this goony. What's the point of fielding a team that isn't allowed to compete for a Championship? What other sport does that? Forget college basketball...what other sport, professional, college, or otherwise, provides no opportunity for an undefeated team to have a shot at the championship? No other sport manages to let money get in the way of every team having an opportunity. Why should it happen? Because you can't definitively tell me that Florida is the National Champion. Because this argument is taking place is the exact reason why something needs to happen to make a change. I understand money plays a huge role, and that's why those conferences would have to get an automatic bid somehow into whatever tournament was decided to be implemented. But just because Boise State gets into a tournament doesn't mean you aren't going to have "big exciting matchups." I don't know about you, but the BSU-Oklahoma game was a HELL of a lot more exciting than last nights snoozer. I fundamentally disagree with you here. Yes, being a D1 school should guarantee you a chance at a title. It defies the entire idea of "sport" to not have that opportunity. Why play if you can't win?

Not sure if this was known or not, but Chris Harris will apparently start at strong safety instead of Todd Johnson. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070109bearsearly,1,1370791.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Basketball only has that because it allows for 30+ regular season games and a ridiculously overstuffed tournament. Such a situation is not possible in football. Simply handing a spot to conference champs doesn't solve a thing, since not all conferences are created equal. Furthermore, while you can pretend they all have a chance, they don't. Both sports are still dominated by the select few. Absolutely, but that's determined on the court, and not by politics and computers. George Mason got to the Final Four. They may not have won the title, but they got a crack at it. They would be your Boise State equivalent, and Boise State gets nothing but a pat on the back and a chunk of cash. I don't believe that there's no way to create a system that can give all teams a chance at the National Title if they perform on the field. It won't happen often, if ever, but there should be the opportunity.

Goony, I don't need a system "built for Boise State"...what I'd like is a system where at the beginning of the year, each football team has a chance to win a National Title. Basketball provides exactly that opportunity, and everyone still makes their money.

The funny thing is that Miami just got burned by a "college coach"...why would they go after another one? After a couple of losing season some college school would come after Carroll and he'd probably go right back to it...not sure why you'd want to travel that road again if you're Miami. The difference being that Carroll is a former NFL coach and assistant while Saban wasn't (to my knowledge) Nick Saban used to be an assistant coach with the Browns and Oilers. And it's not like Pete Carroll was some really successful NFL coach. Every year he coached the team's record was worse than the previous year.

This is really really tough. I'm not sure some of them are really "broadcasters" though...does Mike North or Mike Murphy actually broadcast games? There probably should be a division between "sports broadcasters" and "sports hosts". Buck, North and Morgan are all so painful I can hardly listen to them.

The funny thing is that Miami just got burned by a "college coach"...why would they go after another one? After a couple of losing season some college school would come after Carroll and he'd probably go right back to it...not sure why you'd want to travel that road again if you're Miami.

:( I don't get it. IIRC, if he's put on the IR he can't come off until the next season. Meaning he wouldn't be able to play at all next year. IR only lasts till the end of the current season. He can play next year.

I figured one thread to discuss the coaching rumors, hires, and such would be a good idea. Lets start with this gem: http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9916444

Huh...I didn't realize that Tony Gonzalez is a free agent this year. It's unlikely, but if KC can't get him re-signed, and doesn't franchise him, I hope the Bears would take a look in his direction. Don Banks on CNNsi.com says he's likely to be franchised if he's not signed, so it's likely a moot point.

I'm not sure why you would be thankful of where we are...5th place in the central...when that team was a wild card team. Granted, they weren't a very good wild card team, but nonetheless, they were sure better than the 06 Cubs. We definitely have some potential this year, but I'm not ready to say that we'll be a better team than 98. And Riggleman doesn't get enough credit as a manager.

There isn't a surefire way to solve the college football championship issue. My point is I don't really care if you're 5th and feel screwed. If it went to an 8 team playoff, #9 would feel screwed, and I'd care even less. They choose to be in the conference they are in, and they schedule their own out of conference games. If you are willing to remain in a weak conference, then it's your own responsibility to get tough OOC games to make up for that weakness. It's not like this system was just sprung on them. This has been the case for years. And prior to the BCS, they wouldn't have even played in such a big bowl game as they did. I think an 8 team playoff would have less chance to leave someone out that should be there though. Mid-major undefeateds are usually in the top 8 at least. Meanwhile Boise State went undefeated, won a BCS bowl game, and are still ranked 5th and would have missed any "playoff" scenario. Any team left out of an 8 team playoff almost assuredly has a loss. It's not like Boise State can just go hop on over to a major conference or something. They're in the WAC because they've had to build their way to national significance. And they had to start winning some big games so they could start scheduling better opponents. Not everyone can be in a major conference. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opportunity at the Championship. Bottom line: Theres less of a commotion when a number 9 gets left out of the playoffs. They, obviously, have less of a chance of going all the way. I think people have given Boise State a little bit of recognition. The thing is, you HAVE TO SCHEDULE PEOPLE OUT OF CONFERENCE to get respect. Thats how it works, and thats how it SHOULD be. Boise State played NO ONE RANKED before they got to the Fiesta Bowl. Obviously its hard to say they are a top 8 team or something. They played Oregon State who ended up ranked 21 in the AP, 22 in BCS and USA Today. Not sure whether they were ranked at the time they played. They also beat Hawaii, who ended up ranked 24 in the USA Today poll. Boise State was number 8 in the BCS rankings even prior to the Oklahoma game. They would have made an 8 team playoff.

There isn't a surefire way to solve the college football championship issue. My point is I don't really care if you're 5th and feel screwed. If it went to an 8 team playoff, #9 would feel screwed, and I'd care even less. They choose to be in the conference they are in, and they schedule their own out of conference games. If you are willing to remain in a weak conference, then it's your own responsibility to get tough OOC games to make up for that weakness. It's not like this system was just sprung on them. This has been the case for years. And prior to the BCS, they wouldn't have even played in such a big bowl game as they did. I think an 8 team playoff would have less chance to leave someone out that should be there though. Mid-major undefeateds are usually in the top 8 at least. Meanwhile Boise State went undefeated, won a BCS bowl game, and are still ranked 5th and would have missed any "playoff" scenario. Any team left out of an 8 team playoff almost assuredly has a loss. It's not like Boise State can just go hop on over to a major conference or something. They're in the WAC because they've had to build their way to national significance. And they had to start winning some big games so they could start scheduling better opponents. Not everyone can be in a major conference. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opportunity at the Championship.

“Bob Stoops, after living a full life, died. When he got to heaven, God was showing him around. They came to a modest little house with a faded Sooner flag in the window. “‘This house is yours for eternity, Bob," said God. "This is very special; not everyone gets a house up here." “Bob felt special, indeed, and walked up to his house. “On his way up the porch, he noticed another house just around the corner. It was a three-story mansion with a Blue and Orange sidewalk, a 50-foot tall flagpole with an enormous BSU Bronco flag. “In every window, he could see Bronco fans. Bob looked at God and said, ‘God, I'm not trying to be ungrateful, but I have a question. I was a good coach, I won a national championship in 2000, 4 Big 12 Championships, 8 bowl game appearances including 5 BCS Bowls.’ “God said, ‘So what do you want to know, Bob?’ "’Well, why does Chris Petersen get a better house than me?’ “God chuckled and said, ‘Bob, that's not Petersen's house, that's mine.’

I don't understand how Boise State is ranked behind USC. USC lost to Oregon State, and Boise State killed Oregon State, and obviously were unbeaten. And behind Wisconsin in the USA today poll?

Here's the article about Jackson likely being out for the Bears game. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2724346

If he's meaning that the Bears are compensating for the Harris and Brown injuries, then that's true...but I wonder if they are looking at the last few weeks games and thinking that the Bears are vulnerable in places where they may not be this week. Just a thought. They did change what they do. Back in the Seattle game, almost no blitzes were called because the D-Line was getting such good pressure on the QB. Now without Tommie, Rivera has been using a lot of blitzes and leaving the safties in single coverage. Thanks. I thought I might be overthinking it...

I've wondered if the Bears are trying different things defensively the last few weeks to give teams different things to prepare for...then I saw this quote. If he's meaning that the Bears are compensating for the Harris and Brown injuries, then that's true...but I wonder if they are looking at the last few weeks games and thinking that the Bears are vulnerable in places where they may not be this week. Just a thought.

If you want the real scoop, check out Terry Bradshaw's column on Foxsports.com. In one sentence he says he can't pick this game. In the next sentence, he picks the Bears. He spends about 15 paragraphs saying that he's just not comfortable with Rex Grossman, but he really likes him.... Oh yeah, and he doesn't like that Rex was honest...he think Rex should've lied, even if what he said was true, because that's what Terry would've done. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6346862

Thank God that SD did this before Hendry got the idea... :P

No there shouldn't.