2009 NCAA football thread!!

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Don't get me wrong, I like the bowl system too. The one way they could do it is have six conference champions and 2 at-large berths. It might encourage people to schedule tough OOC games to get them the at-large even if they don't win their conference.

That would solve very little. The 2 at large births would be widely contested. Plus the 6 conference champions really does a disservice to the smaller conferences who have a beef with the system.

So the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac-10 and Big East all get their champion in the playoff, but how are the next 2 spots decided? I guarantee if the Irish win 7 games, they're in and then you pretty much have to take the next best team from (likely) the SEC or Big 12. Once again, the BYUs, TCUs, Boise States, Utahs, etc... are out in the cold.

A playoff system is garbage because:

(a) there simply isn't enough games in the season to separate contenders from the chokers (I'm looking at you OU and OSU) therefore even if you have an 8-10 team playoff, spots 4-14 are all going to be a matter of voting and preference - I think you'll end up with just as many gripes about Utah or Boise State not getting a seed and finishing 9th as you do currently; and

(b) the extension of the playoffs is not all that practical - academics already whine about the football teams taking away from the purpose of universities, but to extend it out another 4+ weeks to fit in a playoff? That would never fly.

I like the current system. If Boise State or Utah want a shot at the championship, play a really really tough out of conference schedule. Play OSU, Texas and a good team from another conference. To me, those teams records should all have asterisks by them because their schedules are noncompetitive (except Boise State in 2006... boomer ugh).

[JayP]

Originally Posted by valo403

This is the thing playoff advocates overlook, going to a playoff kills the importance of the regular season. Lose a game in September to Stanford? Who cares, doesn't matter. A showdown between two top 5 teams? I'm not making as much effort to watch it if it doesn't really mean much beyond seeding for the playoffs.

Sorry, I'm not down for trading the week in and week out importance and excitement of college football for 3 weeks of playoffs at the end of the year.

And don't forget, all a playoff does is shift the controversy from who's number two to who's number eight, it doesn't do anything to resolve that selection process. Unless of course you're one of those people who backs the 'every conference winner' system, because of course Troy deserves a playoff spot.

I'm a fan of the plus one system. Play the bowl games, make teams win big matchups against other great teams, and then decide who the top two teams are. It's not perfect, but at least you force teams to prove themselves and build a better resume upon which to make the selection.

Great post and covers all the major problems with a playoff.

College football should not be like the NFL where last week's Broncos/Pats game means very little in the long run. I'm sure the Pats are a little bummed they lost, but it means nothing in the end. Then look at LSU/Florida and watch the players on the sidelines crying because they know their National Championship dreams are basically over.

A 16-team playoff would be never work and should never even be suggested.

An 8-team playoff has the exact same "issues" there are now except it will be the #9 and #10 teams moaning instead of #3 and #4. I'd say there would be even more crying as there's a lot more teams that can make the argument for being that last seed in the playoffs than there are teams that can make that argument for being in the National Championship game.

A plus-one system is a feasible option, but you'd need to promote another bowl to BCS for it to work. Otherwise, you have the 4 BCS bowls meaning 8 teams - the 6 conference winners and 2 at-larges. That essentially negates any chance for a mid-major to get a bid (either that or a Texas/Alabama from last season is on the outside looking in). It gives every major player in the country a chance at a quality opponent and a chance to build their resume. Even if one of the conference winners isn't as strong you can still beat them by 3 TDs to sway the voters.

[corporatejay]

I like the current system. If Boise State or Utah want a shot at the championship, play a really really tough out of conference schedule. Play OSU, Texas and a good team from another conference. To me, those teams records should all have asterisks by them because their schedules are noncompetitive (except Boise State in 2006... boomer ugh).

I couldn't agree more, but hasn't Boise State gone on record saying that they have a tough time getting teams to schedule them because as I stated earlier, lose to Boise and it's worse than losing to Washington (I'm looking at you USC) but beat Boise and it's "well they're a crap team from a crap conference" and so the risk/reward isn't as high.

To be honest, this could all be cured if the PAC-10 would take Utah, Boise and BYU.

[Gugstanley]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Floirda is gettitng the shaft this year because everyone in the east is sucking big time. they had Utah on the sched and they backed out so insert CsU.

We have been through this before. You have your facts wrong. Utah was never on Florida's schedule. They talked about making it happen but Florida had to dump a game against I think Toledo and Utah needed to get rid of San Jose St. So for Florida and Utah to play those two opponents had to agree to play each other. The real sticking point is Florida refused to give Utah a home and home but will only play Utah in Florida. Typical SEC team that won't go on the road out of conference.

Utah has been very open to playing Florida but it requires Florida to visit Utah for one of the games. Florida can keep paying cupcakes to come and visit them as most big programs want a home and home series.

The bowls can stick around they just need a playoff also.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

This is the thing playoff advocates overlook, going to a playoff kills the importance of the regular season. Lose a game in September to Stanford? Who cares, doesn't matter. A showdown between two top 5 teams? I'm not making as much effort to watch it if it doesn't really mean much beyond seeding for the playoffs.

But that happens already.

USC lost to Washington and that hasn't stopped them from being in the running for the National Championship.

In 2007 LSU had two bad losses and they still won the NC.

Originally Posted by JayP

An 8-team playoff has the exact same "issues" there are now except it will be the #9 and #10 teams moaning instead of #3 and #4. I'd say there would be even more crying as there's a lot more teams that can make the argument for being that last seed in the playoffs than there are teams that can make that argument for being in the National Championship game.

If you are a two lose #9 or #10 team you have a lot less claim to be in the running for a NC then a 1 loss #3 or #4 team. You may have some whining but it would be from teams that have a lot less to whine about.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

But that happens already.

USC lost to Washington and that hasn't stopped them from being in the running for the National Championship.

In 2007 LSU had two bad losses and they still won the NC.



If you are a two lose #9 or #10 team you have a lot less claim to be in the running for a NC then a 1 loss #3 or #4 team. You may have some whining but it would be from teams that have a lot less to whine about.

Except that when you lose now the only way you get to a title game is by somebody else screwing up. The only way USC gets into the NC picture is through losses elsewhere, if that doesn't happen they aren't going to be there. Under the playoff that loss means nothing, any team ranked near the top of the preseason polls is pretty much granted one free loss. Like I said, I'm not making an effort to tune in for a Florida-LSU game when there are absolutely no consequences beyond playoff seeding.

As for the second argument, sure a #9 or #10 team has less to complain about, but that doesn't mean that the team in the #8 spot is more deserving. If anything making a split at that point is more difficult, there's a way better chance that the choice is made between a number of teams with identical records.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by moon

But that happens already.

USC lost to Washington and that hasn't stopped them from being in the running for the National Championship.

In 2007 LSU had two bad losses and they still won the NC.

USC has no hope for a National Championship unless two of Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Cincy, and all other BCS undefeated lose. They still have a chance, but losing one game takes their destiny out of their control.

LSU winning the NC with 2 losses was a complete fluke and likely doesn't happen anytime soon. Either way, the same scenario could easily happen in a playoff where there's a handful of unbeatens and one-loss teams and a crapload of 3-loss teams.

If you are a two lose #9 or #10 team you have a lot less claim to be in the running for a NC then a 1 loss #3 or #4 team. You may have some whining but it would be from teams that have a lot less to whine about.

Well, for one the whining from mid-majors would go up about tenfold since they have zero shot of making the playoffs in an 8-team playoff.

An 8-team playoff will NEVER work. The universally agreed upon way to do it is have your 6 conference winners and 2 at-large bids in it. Those 2 at-large bids are always going to be the 1-loss teams from the latest two power conferences (right now, Big 12 and SEC). So what you get is no chance for a mid-major to play in the playoff, and a ton of teams from power conferences whining not about being at-large bids and/or the fact that a 3 or 4 loss ACC or Big East (for example, they're the most logical candidates lately) got in and they didn't.

A 12-team playoff would never happen (byes) so that leaves either a 4 or 16 team playoff. A 4 team playoff would be better replaced with a plus one. For one thing, the logistics of it are a lot simpler. You can still have all your bowl games and there's just a Championship game played a week later.

A 16-team playoff would absolutely destroy college football's regular season. The vast majority of the field would consist of 2 and 3 loss teams. Do they really deserve a second chance? And, again, those early season games lose all their luster as big time programs can still lose twice (!!) more and still have a shot at the playoffs. Go back and look at the final BCS standings for the last couple seasons and look at how many 9-3 teams there are. There's about 10 every year and maybe 3-4 spots in the playoffs for those teams. You can say that it's 3-loss teams whining instead of 1-loss teams now, but there's also plenty more of those teams. The outcry would be hilarious.

The real key is that if you can afford 3 losses and still get into the playoffs what's the point in scheduling any decent non-conference opposition? All that would happen in that the major football powers would schedule nothing OOC and still get in the playoffs even if they have a average 5-3 conference record since they went 4-0 against four cupcakes.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Except that when you lose now the only way you get to a title game is by somebody else screwing up. The only way USC gets into the NC picture is through losses elsewhere, if that doesn't happen they aren't going to be there. Under the playoff that loss means nothing, any team ranked near the top of the preseason polls is pretty much granted one free loss. Like I said, I'm not making an effort to tune in for a Florida-LSU game when there are absolutely no consequences beyond playoff seeding.

But as we have seen those other teams screwing up happens more often than not. We don't see a lot of undefeated teams playing each other or games where the two teams in the game are undisputed.

Considering that the games right now don't mean that much anyways not sure how a play-off changes that.

There aren't any consequences for the LSU-Florida game if Florida goes on to win the SEC Championship game. Florida with one loss would still go to the title game.

As for the second argument, sure a #9 or #10 team has less to complain about, but that doesn't mean that the team in the #8 spot is more deserving. If anything making a split at that point is more difficult, there's a way better chance that the choice is made between a number of teams with identical records.

It may be more difficult but since the choice basically means nothing as the team is going to get beat then I am not sure it is nearly as important as deciding who is #2 and having a real shot at the NC.

[moon]

Originally Posted by JayP

USC has no hope for a National Championship unless two of Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Cincy, and all other BCS undefeated lose. They still have a chance, but losing one game takes their destiny out of their control.

Well first off one of Texas/Kansas and Alabama/Florida will have a loss guaranteed so that reduces the number of team they need to beat out.

I think they get in over a 0 loss Cincy. That is what I have heard on the radio from people who do the computer projections.

They may even get in over a 0 loss Iowa, but I haven't heard about the computer projections and it is more unlikely that a mediocre team like Iowa losses rather than goes undefeated.

I don't think it is likely, but I think that realistically they need Texas to lose and then they have a real chance at making it.

Well, for one the whining from mid-majors would go up about tenfold since they have zero shot of making the playoffs in an 8-team playoff.

An 8-team playoff will NEVER work.

For me the only reason to have an 8 team play-off would be to include those mid-majors and therefore shut them up.

If you aren't going to include them than you can likely go with a 4 team play-off as there aren't going to be more than that who deserve a shot (but that is because there isn't a mid-major team that has deserved a shot at the NC in the BCS era so I would be fine with their whining).

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

To be honest, this could all be cured if the PAC-10 would take Utah, Boise and BYU.

The problem with that is that other than BYU (barely) those schools are 1 or two trick ponies. I used to think along the same lines as you do, but they dont have the program sustainability in ANY sport and don't have a wide breath of sports to make the Pac-10 even consider accepting them.

BYU and Utah have flashes where the football team or basketball team are good (or maybe a "lesser" sport), but they simply aren't on the same level consistently as other schools. If you look at the sports programs at Arizona, Washington, Oregon St., etc... they trump anything those schools have.

Unfortunately, for those smaller programs, they will always find it tough to climb the ladder because (a) they aren't in a legit conference, (b) bigger programs have nothing to gain by scheduling a weaker opponent (in the eyes of BCS voters) and (c) other major conferences don't want weak schools to join, thereby dragging down its reputation.

A playoff system will never work and hopefully is never attempted. College Football simply isn't condusive to a playoff system. 119 teams, a limited amount of time to schedule games, a violent sport so more rest is required = no room for a playoff.

[Gugstanley]

If the Pac 10 expands, which is rumored over the next 18 months before they get a new TV contract, Utah will be one of the top choices. Pac 10 is full of research institutions (the priority for joining not sports) and Utah fits right in. Contrary to popular belief have proven the ability to hang with the Pac 10 in sports. They would only get better with BCS money and more TV money

BYU and Boise State don't fit the model of the Pac 10. Boise State is expanding their stadium to about 60,000 and really want into the MWC. BYU has long talked about going independant like Notre Dame. I just don't see them as having the appeal of Notre Dame but they are better at football.

Perfect world for me would see Utah and Colorado move to the Pac 10 and BYU move into the Big 12 replacing Colorado. Both team's stadiums are within 30 minute of my house and I would get season tickets to both even though I can't stand BYU. Make for some great teams rolling through the state

As for the Playoffs if they take the conference champs plus a few at large teams then a playoff would work. Play it through December and part of January and don't bring up student athlete issues as even the schools don't care. The other teams can still fill in the other bowl games. Regular season means a lot because you must win your confernce title.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by moon

Well first off one of Texas/Kansas and Alabama/Florida will have a loss guaranteed so that reduces the number of team they need to beat out.

I think they get in over a 0 loss Cincy. That is what I have heard on the radio from people who do the computer projections.

They may even get in over a 0 loss Iowa, but I haven't heard about the computer projections and it is more unlikely that a mediocre team like Iowa losses rather than goes undefeated.

I don't think it is likely, but I think that realistically they need Texas to lose and then they have a real chance at making it.

The point is that with one loss USC has to rely on other teams. How likely that is is irrelevant.

For me the only reason to have an 8 team play-off would be to include those mid-majors and therefore shut them up.

If you aren't going to include them than you can likely go with a 4 team play-off as there aren't going to be more than that who deserve a shot (but that is because there isn't a mid-major team that has deserved a shot at the NC in the BCS era so I would be fine with their whining).

Okay, so your 8 team playoff last season has the 6 conference champs, Utah, and Texas OR Alabama.

I'm sure that would go over much better than the current system.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

Well first off one of Texas/Kansas and Alabama/Florida will have a loss guaranteed so that reduces the number of team they need to beat out.

I think they get in over a 0 loss Cincy. That is what I have heard on the radio from people who do the computer projections.

They may even get in over a 0 loss Iowa, but I haven't heard about the computer projections and it is more unlikely that a mediocre team like Iowa losses rather than goes undefeated.

I don't think it is likely, but I think that realistically they need Texas to lose and then they have a real chance at making it.



For me the only reason to have an 8 team play-off would be to include those mid-majors and therefore shut them up.

If you aren't going to include them than you can likely go with a 4 team play-off as there aren't going to be more than that who deserve a shot (but that is because there isn't a mid-major team that has deserved a shot at the NC in the BCS era so I would be fine with their whining).

Well then you've proposed a setup that absolutely no major conference will agree to. Do you seriously think one of the big six conferences will sign an agreement that doesn't guarantee their champ a playoff spot? No way in hell that happens.

As Jay P said, if you're going to a 4 team playoff the plus one accomplishes the same thing without imposing a strict 4 team structure. If you've got 5-6 teams that have a case for those 4 spots they can all play each other in the bowls and see who's standing for the championship game.

[moon]

Originally Posted by JayP

The point is that with one loss USC has to rely on other teams. How likely that is is irrelevant.

It does matter. Since there is a decent chance that USC can still make it to the title game the statement that the one loss is meaningful under the current system is BS. Games are not any more important now than they would be in a play-off system.

Okay, so your 8 team playoff last season has the 6 conference champs, Utah, and Texas OR Alabama.

I'm sure that would go over much better than the current system.

Well it couldn't go over any worse.

And I have no reason to take the 6 conference champs either. I have no need for some crap team from the Big East or ACC to make it in just because they were the top team in a bad conference that luckily signed a deal awhile ago.

Originally Posted by valo403

Well then you've proposed a setup that absolutely no major conference will agree to. Do you seriously think one of the big six conferences will sign an agreement that doesn't guarantee their champ a playoff spot? No way in hell that happens.

I agree with this 100%.

I have no problem with the argument that a play-off will never happen or won't work because the BCS conferences won't agree to it.

What I have an issue with is people that think that games will mean less under a play-off system because we have already seen that individual games don't mean a whole lot right now anyways.

As Jay P said, if you're going to a 4 team playoff the plus one accomplishes the same thing without imposing a strict 4 team structure. If you've got 5-6 teams that have a case for those 4 spots they can all play each other in the bowls and see who's standing for the championship game.

I like the idea of a plus one as much, if not more, than a 4 team play-off.

[nickerjones]

SAM Bradford out of the game , reinjuring his shoulder.... OU up by 6 after getting into the red zone twice and not being able to punch it in.....

[transplant99]

Really too bad about Bradford.

I am no OK fan but this kid forgoes a whole boatload of money to retrun and try and take his school to a NC. instead, I am concerned he may have derailed his NHL future if this injury is indeed a recurring one ( same thing twice in 2 months scares the crap out of GM's in the NFL) and will not realize the monetary security he once was guarenteed.

The kid did all the right things for all the right reasons and may pay for it dearly.

That being said, I REALLY hope OK can win this thing as it would give USC a big boost back towards the NC game....assuming SoCal can win out of course.

[carom]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I am concerned he may have derailed his NHL future if this injury is indeed a recurring one

I doubt he would even be drafted now in the nhl.

Seruiously though, this game is no shoot out, it is more of a rumble.

[Sylvanfan]

Wow strange events there. I thought the OU guy was inbounds, fumbled, and than the ball was knocked out before Texas got the ball in the endzone. Instead they rule the guy muffed the punt at the 18 yard line.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I personally like the bowls system. I think a playoff wouldn't be right in college football.

I think the BCS is better than the old system but could get better.

Floirda is gettitng the shaft this year because everyone in the east is sucking big time. they had Utah on the sched and they backed out so insert CsU.

I like the bowl system becuase it makes winning more important than just getting into the playoffs.

I also think that it would take away from the excitement of CFB.

I dont like 1-aa like northern iowa because its boring to me. woopie you make the playoffs with 3 or 4 losses and could win the championship. thats not right because it gives you leway(sp) on games that you can lose.

Have you ever watched the 1-AA playoffs?

Didn't think so. It's great football and it is exciting. I rarely watch a bowl game. There is zero on the line except in the Nat'l title game. The bowls are about money and nothing else.


I'll anxiously await your OMG another playoff person response.

[PIMking]

Nick,

This sucks... I was screaming at the tv NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I want OU to win so bad.. Atleast McCoy looks like a schmuck though that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. BOOMER SOONER!!!