2008 College Football Thread

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

I took a lot of crap from people that had not watched Utah play a single game this season.

How do you know that those people didn't watch a single game this year?

The only way to settle this is a playoff. USC, Texas and Utah deserve a shot at the top. I'm finished watching college football until next season starts. As far as I am concerned the Undefeated Utah team won the title.

I don't see why an undefeated Utah won the title this year. You don't win titles by going undefeated you do it by being voted the top team in one of the polls.

[nik-]

It makes me sad that Alabama didn't even show up today. They played much better against Florida, way better than they played Utah. Oh well, complacency led to an early hole that was too big to dig out of. Sucks.

[corporatejay]

how anyone can say that a playoff system is not warranted after today is beyond me. Utah goes undefeated, dismantles Bama but won't win the national championship, or at least even get to compete for one.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by nik-

It makes me sad that Alabama didn't even show up today. They played much better against Florida, way better than they played Utah. Oh well, complacency led to an early hole that was too big to dig out of. Sucks.

their QB got sacked 8 times. they were going to lose that game no matter how big a hole utah buried them in.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Again, I wasn't talking to anyone at calgarypuck at all. My son was watching a bowl preview show before Christmas (he's a huge OU fan), and someone suggested this possibility and was laughed at by two other panelists.

Your son is a good man....... BOOMER!!!!!

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

how anyone can say that a playoff system is not warranted after today is beyond me. Utah goes undefeated, dismantles Bama but won't win the national championship, or at least even get to compete for one.

I'm convinced. I used to argue against the playoff. Mostly because it means that students and fans would have to travel to a possible 3 bowls games across the country instead of one, and the atmosphere would be lost. Plus the season would go into late January. Say you were a student at Utah, would you be able to go see you team plays QF, SF and Final?

But after seeing Utah, USC and especially Texas get ripped off this year. I've changed my mind

[Gugstanley]

Front page poll on ESPN shows 67% think Utah should get a piece of the title. Oklahoma is the only state not voting positive for Utah. Only way the system will change is if people keep complaining and stop watching the BCS.

[transplant99]

Huge and massive props to a very game Utah team...i certainly could not of seen that kind of game against a very good Alabama team at all. Speed kills in football too.

And not to beat a dead horse...but who wouldnt want to see Utah play another game against a USC or the winner of FL/OK or Texas should they win against OSU?

Plus the season would go into late January.

I've heard this numerous times from those who dont favor a playoff system. And I have one question...why?

Why can the games not be played thru december like the other NCAA levels do? I just dont get it. In fact...why can some of the the bowl games themselves not be used as the playoff system? As an example, USC had 26 days between games...and that was with two off weeks during the season. Surely they could wrap up the PO's in the same time frame that bowl season constitutes now.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

how anyone can say that a playoff system is not warranted after today is beyond me. Utah goes undefeated, dismantles Bama but won't win the national championship, or at least even get to compete for one.

There are many issues with a playoff system - many that I've never seen mentioned here.

That's not to say the BCS system is perfect because it's far from that. It's quickly becoming out of date with the growing parity in college football (primarily due to scholarship amount rule changes). It needs some tweaking in a big way because it's pretty obvious that the Mountain West deserved that automatic bid much more that the Big East did.

It's a hell of a lot more complicated that saying "Utah won! Playoff! Rabble, Rabble, Rabble!". If you actually think about it, in most logical playoff scenarios Utah still most likely doesn't get their shot.

Plus one: Florida/OU winner vs. USC or Utah (either way there's the same complaining as in BCS scenarios)
4 team: Florida, OU, Texas, Alabama
8 team: 6 conference winners, Texas, Alabama

The only playoff scenario Utah would even get a chance in is a 16-team playoff and that's the last thing college football needs. 3-loss teams are not national championship material. I'm sure a 3-loss team could win a 16-team playoff on occasion, but then the winner is simply who's hottest at the end of the year, not who's been the best all year.

The biggest problem with a 16 team playoff system is that it'll completely destroy all non-conference play. BCS schools will simply schedule 4 non-BCS cupcakes and then hope they can get through conference play relatively unscathed. Except when this happens there's a hell of a lot more 2 and 3 loss teams and there's the same complaining as there is now.

Plus that playoff system puts the emphasis on games featuring mediocre teams and not great ones (like the NFL). Florida/Alabama becomes a petty game for seeding (#1/2 vs. #3/4) and Oregon/Oregon St. is the important game on the last weekend of the season. Reminds me of the NFL where Indy/Tennessee has zero attention, but the game NBC options is between two very mediocre teams. College should never become like that.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by JayP

There are many issues with a playoff system - many that I've never seen mentioned here.

That's not to say the BCS system is perfect because it's far from that. It's quickly becoming out of date with the growing parity in college football (primarily due to scholarship amount rule changes). It needs some tweaking in a big way because it's pretty obvious that the Mountain West deserved that automatic bid much more that the Big East did.

It's a hell of a lot more complicated that saying "Utah won! Playoff! Rabble, Rabble, Rabble!". If you actually think about it, in most logical playoff scenarios Utah still most likely doesn't get their shot.

Plus one: Florida/OU winner vs. USC or Utah (either way there's the same complaining as in BCS scenarios)
4 team: Florida, OU, Texas, Alabama
8 team: 6 conference winners, Texas, Alabama

The only playoff scenario Utah would even get a chance in is a 16-team playoff and that's the last thing college football needs. 3-loss teams are not national championship material. I'm sure a 3-loss team could win a 16-team playoff on occasion, but then the winner is simply who's hottest at the end of the year, not who's been the best all year.

The biggest problem with a 16 team playoff system is that it'll completely destroy all non-conference play. BCS schools will simply schedule 4 non-BCS cupcakes and then hope they can get through conference play relatively unscathed. Except when this happens there's a hell of a lot more 2 and 3 loss teams and there's the same complaining as there is now.

Plus that playoff system puts the emphasis on games featuring mediocre teams and not great ones (like the NFL). Florida/Alabama becomes a petty game for seeding (#1/2 vs. #3/4) and Oregon/Oregon St. is the important game on the last weekend of the season. Reminds me of the NFL where Indy/Tennessee has zero attention, but the game NBC options is between two very mediocre teams. College should never become like that.

Conference winners should have nothing to do with the playoff. why should a 9-4 team get into a playoff from the ACC? or 10-3 from the big east. If a conference has an off year, tough, the best 8 or 16 teams should be there. now if that includes 3 from one conference, whatever. The MWC is stronger than both the ACC and Big East this year, and should be rewarded with utah in a playoff if it existed. ACC and big east auto bid? give me a break. Screw the "BCS conferences" bring the best teams.

[Gugstanley]

Originally Posted by JayP

The biggest problem with a 16 team playoff system is that it'll completely destroy all non-conference play. BCS schools will simply schedule 4 non-BCS cupcakes and then hope they can get through conference play relatively unscathed. Except when this happens there's a hell of a lot more 2 and 3 loss teams and there's the same complaining as there is now.

Sounds like what the BCS teams are doing now. The SEC only likes to play teams at home. Unless BCS teams have a rival that is ranked they play a lot of cupcakes at home. Nothing wrong with 16 teams that would take all arguements out of who should make it plus add the cinderella story.

Playoffs favor the big schools. Utah has the 1st string to match up with anyone but lack depth and that is what would hurt them in a playoff system if people got injured. Got to play the games and see who wins.

[ricoFlame]

Today in the real grand daddy of them all, the international bowl, buffalo has a shot at their 9th win of the year. now that is an amazing turn around for a program, and turner gill will likely be a pretty sought after guy pretty soon. Danny barrett is on their coaching staff too.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

Conference winners should have nothing to do with the playoff. why should a 9-4 team get into a playoff from the ACC? or 10-3 from the big east. If a conference has an off year, tough, the best 8 or 16 teams should be there. now if that includes 3 from one conference, whatever. The MWC is stronger than both the ACC and Big East this year, and should be rewarded with utah in a playoff if it existed. ACC and big east auto bid? give me a break. Screw the "BCS conferences" bring the best teams.

College football has been about winning your conference since the beginning. And now you want to scrap that along with bowl games that have been around for 75-100 years (no, calling the semi-finals the Rose Bowl is hardly a compromise)?

I never understood the notion to model college football after the sterile, corporate nation of March Madness. There are some playoff systems that could work, but you have to keep the tradition intact. It makes college football what it is.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by JayP

College football has been about winning your conference since the beginning. And now you want to scrap that along with bowl games that have been around for 75-100 years (no, calling the semi-finals the Rose Bowl is hardly a compromise)?

I never understood the notion to model college football after the sterile, corporate nation of March Madness. There are some playoff systems that could work, but you have to keep the tradition intact. It makes college football what it is.

there is nothing wrong with that. 16 teams then .

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

Sounds like what the BCS teams are doing now. The SEC only likes to play teams at home. Unless BCS teams have a rival that is ranked they play a lot of cupcakes at home. Nothing wrong with 16 teams that would take all arguements out of who should make it plus add the cinderella story.

We all know the SEC plays cupcakes in non-con play. They get that luxury from being the most over-rated conference. Other conferences, however, do have to play decent competition (for the most part) to pad their resume. Look some schedules and you'll see most of the top 25 actually plays some decent non-con games. Add a 16-team playoff to the mix and you mind as well just cancel the first 4 weeks of the season.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

there is nothing wrong with that. 16 teams then .

Then you really don't understand the debate.

And like I said, the last week of the season Oregon St vs. Oregon is in primetime and Florida/Alabama is an irrelevant afterthought.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by JayP

Then you really don't understand the debate.

And like I said, the last week of the season Oregon St vs. Oregon is in primetime and Florida/Alabama is an irrelevant afterthought.

get over yourself. you're not the only person who understands college football, just talking about how things need to change. jeezuz, get off your high horse.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

get over yourself. you're not the only person who understands college football, just talking about how things need to change. jeezuz, get off your high horse.

Okay so tell me why it's so damn easy to just eliminate bowl games that have been around for 100 years and conference play which has been around for just as long.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by JayP

Then you really don't understand the debate.

And like I said, the last week of the season Oregon St vs. Oregon is in primetime and Florida/Alabama is an irrelevant afterthought.

Because seeding in a 16 team playoff doesn't mean anything?

You've said that twice now and it makes no sense.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by JayP

Okay so tell me why it's so damn easy to just eliminate bowl games that have been around for 100 years and conference play which has been around for just as long.

It's not easy, and it won't be done, because change doesn't come easy in the NCAA. when did anyone say it was easy? it is something that needs to be done, but we will never see. god forbid people discuss change. i'm sure orange bowl officials and traditionalists loved the hokies/bearcats matchup.