soccer10k

Baltimore is favored over Indianapolis in the game so Baltimore winning wouldn't be an upset.

Indianapolis (+3.5) over Baltimore New Orleans (-5) over Philadelphia Chicago (-9) over Seattle New England (+5) over San Diego

Offense please.

Wow. This is a ton of money and I think it's going to make or break the MLS. I just hope it doesn't break it.

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.

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.

I don't think Oden will turn pro, but Durant is a nice fall back option. Oden needs to stay. He is so limited with only having his left hand. Plus it is good for the college game. Durant is great. Even if he had both hands I don't think Oden is polished enough offensively to be effective in the NBA right now. He just doesn't seem aggressive out there and doesn't demand the ball. There is no reason somebody like him should take just 6 shots in 30 minutes in a big game. I think he needs at least another year at the college level.

Wisconsin is trying to choke away this game.

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.

I personally enjoy reading Simmons, but there are more that a few people who find his incessant pop culture referencing and writing style to be annoying, so I put him on there. I think he's entertaining, but a terrible analyst of sports. He seems very hit and miss with his analysis. He's probably best at discussing the NBA. I agree. I like his writing style and enjoy reading most of his columns but I don't usually take a lot of stock in his analysis of sports, namely baseball.

Gotta be Scoop Jackson.

Morgan although Walton, McCarver and Madden aren't far behind.

I really hope Pete Carroll doesn't go to Miami.

I was thinking we should start an offseason college football thread for coaching moves, recruiting and players declaring for the NFL draft.

Fresno State paid for a ton of upgrades to the athletic department, and I believe other facets of the school as well, by playing the OOC schedule I provided above for the past few years.

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system. There's no logical reason, but the teams from Big 6 conferences not about to go without an automatic bid to any playoff that exists. Sure, it sucks, but an 8 team playoff wouldn't include any Boise State. A 10 or 12 team playoff would, likely, but then you're already stuck with a 4th week of playoff games, which is no different from a 16-team playoff, and then every conference could be represented. An 8 team playoff could include a Boise State if they finish in the top 8 of the final BCS standings. Utah made a BCS game when there were only 4 games.

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system. There is also no reason to preserve the BCS rankings. You could easily got with 10 teams and play two play-in games. How do you pick the ten teams? If you get rid of the BCS and use the polls, which do you use? If multiple polls are used, what if they differ?

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy. This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen. The BCS rankings are completely ridiculous. The conference champs should get in. Wisconsin and Michigan don't get in unless they win the Big 10. Same for LSU or Cal or whoever else. Why is that so difficult? If you can't win your conference, you can't win the national championship. Makes sense to me. So you want to give a team like last year's 8-4 (before the bowl game loss) Florida State a shot at the title because they won the ACC over a team that goes 10-2 but doesn't win their conference but finishes top 5 in the BCS (2006 LSU, 2005 OSU)? FSU didn't deserve a shot at the title last year.

I'm tired of this argument. The BCS teams will schedule the smaller conference teams if they want games. Look at Fresno State's OOC schedule for the past few years: 2000: at Ohio St., at UCLA, vs Cal 2001: at Colorado, vs Oregon St., at Wisconsin, at Colorado St., vs Utah St. 2002: at Wisconsin, vs San Diego St., at Oregon, at Oregon St., vs Colorado St. 2003: at Tennessee, vs Oregon St., at Oklahoma, vs Portland St., at Colorado St. 2004: at Washington, at Kansas St., vs Portland St. 2005: vs Weber St., at Oregon, vs Toledo, at USC 2006: vs Oregon, at Washington, vs Colorado St., at LSU Over these seven years Fresno State went 7-12 against teams from the six major conferences. They have not only beat some of these teams but gotten some of them to travel to Fresno to play. In 2001, they went 5-0 in their OOC schedule with David Carr and yet teams continued to schedule them. They gave USC all they could handle last year but in the next two years they play a home and away with Kansas State, at Oregon and vs Wisconsin. I don't think it's the unwillingness of major conference teams to schedule them but rather the small conference teams not wanting to play tough OOC schedules.

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy. This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

Final Bowl Standings by Conference Conference W L PF PA Wins Over ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ACC 4 4 206 199 WAC, Pac-10, Big Ten, I-A Ind Big 12 3 5 218 277 SEC, Big Ten (2) Big East 5 0 150 89 C-USA, Big 12, ACC (2), MAC Big Ten 2 5 141 191 SEC (2) C-USA 1 4 101 141 MAC I-A Ind 0 2 38 66 MAC 1 3 69 106 Sun Belt M. West 3 1 112 48 MAC, Pac-10, C-USA Pac-10 3 3 175 189 Big 12 (2), Big 10 SEC 6 3 257 193 ACC (2), C-USA, Big 12, I-A Ind, Big 10 Sun Belt 1 1 55 48 C-USA WAC 3 1 124 99 MWC, Pac-10, Big 12

I could see that with Florida and LSU, but I can't follow you there with Arkansas or Auburn. I think Arkansas and Auburn (especially Auburn) could beat USC or OSU. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/scoreboard?confId=null&weekNumber=1&seasonYear=2006 hater You guys are the one making me defend USC! USC!!! Don't lie, you enjoy it.

I would say WVU as well. My point was that people always complain about having good games and with Slaton hurt, WVU wouldn't have given LSU a game. Yeah, I think they deserved to be there more than ND but the game wouldn't have been close.

and run-on sentence . . . ND did not deserve a BCS berth this year. they played three good teams and got annihilated by all three. Funny how no matter how obvious I make it that I'm kidding, ND haters feel the need to attack the Irish anyway after kidding comments. This treatment is getting ridiculous. I think I'll say it this time so you don't have to ndistops. Under the current rules of the BCS (only 2 teams per conference allowed in the BCS) Notre Dame was the most deserving at large team after Michigan, and LSU. no, they weren't. they weren't good enough. I didn't understand your comment anyway - I was more kidding because I have read all the ND fan complaining about being picked on all season without comment all year. anyway, I'm just kidding around. we can beat it to death some more either way Who would you put in place of ND then? West Virginia actually beat a team in the Top 25.... With Slaton hurt there is no way WVU puts up any sort of a fight against LSU. If Slaton was healthy it's a different story, but not with him out.

and run-on sentence . . . ND did not deserve a BCS berth this year. they played three good teams and got annihilated by all three. Funny how no matter how obvious I make it that I'm kidding, ND haters feel the need to attack the Irish anyway after kidding comments. This treatment is getting ridiculous. I think I'll say it this time so you don't have to ndistops. Under the current rules of the BCS (only 2 teams per conference allowed in the BCS) Notre Dame was the most deserving at large team after Michigan, and LSU. no, they weren't. they weren't good enough. I didn't understand your comment anyway - I was more kidding because I have read all the ND fan complaining about being picked on all season without comment all year. anyway, I'm just kidding around. we can beat it to death some more either way Who would you put in place of ND then?