2009 NCAA football thread!!

[JayP]

Originally Posted by moon

But teams aren't playing for their season every week.

If Florida lost to Arkansas it wouldn't matter because if they beat Alabama in the Championship game they are in.

If Iowa wins every game this year it doesn't matter because their are too many teams in front of them to get in anyways.

If USC beats Washington and Texas/Florida wins out then who cares they aren't playing for their season any more than they are now.

The fallacy that the games mean so much now really needs to stop.

So USC did play for their season against Washington and lost is what you're saying. Assuming there's going to be 3 undefeated teams in a given year (as you do) is a very rare occurrence and one a plus-one system would help solve.

I think Iowa could have a look at the title game if Texas loses. They should really be higher in the human polls considering they've played the 9th toughest schedule in the country. They also have a chance to make a major impact on the voters with a win in the Horseshoe in November (even if Ohio St. is having a down year). The computers also love them and should continue to do so.

Of course you conveniently forgot about Texas where one loss puts them on shaky ground to make the Championship game.

Just look at last year. Those classic Penn State/Iowa and especially Texas/Texas Tech primetime games lose all their luster in a playoff system.

The way the system works now is the only way to guarantee a spot in the title game is to go undefeated. Lose once and in almost all cases you have to hope for other team's help to make it in.

[nickerjones]

hey , just wanted to pop in and not let people think i was a fair weather fan. Anyway had surgery saturday and have been high on pain killers since... Mainly the reason I havent been arguing in here haha!
Bad Luck for the sooners.... a couple of calls didnt go their way and it cost them.

However I am not discouraged. Still a decent football team.
3 loses to ranked team by a total of 5 pts away from home. Oh and the back up QB thing....
Oh well at least they will go to a bowl close to me and I can possibly go HAHA!!

[moon]

Originally Posted by JayP

So USC did play for their season against Washington and lost is what you're saying. Assuming there's going to be 3 undefeated teams in a given year (as you do) is a very rare occurrence and one a plus-one system would help solve.

No because even if they win the game they can easily be out of the title game. That loss could easily do nothing to affect their chances at making the game.

Really looking at it now there is a good chance that they need the exact same things to happen win or lose that game.

There may be one more team that jumps with that lose but really they needed Texas to lose either way to get in the NC game.

I think Iowa could have a look at the title game if Texas loses. They should really be higher in the human polls considering they've played the 9th toughest schedule in the country. They also have a chance to make a major impact on the voters with a win in the Horseshoe in November (even if Ohio St. is having a down year). The computers also love them and should continue to do so.

I am going off what I have heard "BCS guys" who do the projections say and that is that Iowa doesn't beat out USC at the end of the year even if they do go unbeaten.

Of course you conveniently forgot about Texas where one loss puts them on shaky ground to make the Championship game.

Of course there are some teams in which every game matters, but there are just as many in which going undefeated means nothing at all so a loss really isn't that big of a deal.

The way the system works now is the only way to guarantee a spot in the title game is to go undefeated. Lose once and in almost all cases you have to hope for other team's help to make it in.

Nope the way it works now is that the only way to guarantee a spot in the title game is to go undefeated and hope that you are ranked 1 or 2 in the polls. There have been enough undefeated teams left out by now to show that an undefeated season isn't enough.

[JayP]

I am going off what I have heard "BCS guys" who do the projections say and that is that Iowa doesn't beat out USC at the end of the year even if they do go unbeaten.

It's hard to project what happens in those games. If USC wins a couple close games at home against weak teams and Iowa dominates Ohio State in the Horseshoe it's hard to say what the voters do.

Of course there are some teams in which every game matters, but there are just as many in which going undefeated means nothing at all so a loss really isn't that big of a deal.

So it's better to have a playoff system where not only does that loss not matter, but the team can afford 2 more and still find their way in.

Nope the way it works now is that the only way to guarantee a spot in the title game is to go undefeated and hope that you are ranked 1 or 2 in the polls. There have been enough undefeated teams left out by now to show that an undefeated season isn't enough.

There's been one.

[transplant99]

I find it funny that a Trojan fan is whining about a true freshman QB missing one week being the sole reason they aren't in the mix for the National Championship.

Can you explain to me where I am whining about USC not being in the mix?? They lost that game ...its the sole reason they arent in the mix. That being said, even if they had won that game, they still wouldnt be in the mix at the end if Texas and Florida win out...as they were both ranked higher to start the season.

And just to let you know...i am not pro playoff because i am a USC fan...in fact that has nothing to do with it. I am a college football fan. I want to see games decided on the field, not on voting sheets and in a computers hard drive.

Just as an example, assuming that things go pretty much as planned, would it not be cool to see Texas play Alabama with the winner taking on the victor of a Florida/Iowa matchup? Or Cincinnati play LSU with the winner getting a USC or Miami?

That scenario right now is impossible. Only because of the system in place. But there is no way you will convince me that such a scenario would somehow diminish the regular season. in fact I think it would enhance things dramatically as the regular season would then actually mean you get into such a schedule only if you are good enough to be in the top 8 or 16. Obviously polls would still have to be part of the mix...but at least the outcomes would be decided between the lines and any mistakes by voters/computers as to who is better would be straightened out with no dispute.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

But teams aren't playing for their season every week.

If Florida lost to Arkansas it wouldn't matter because if they beat Alabama in the Championship game they are in.

If Iowa wins every game this year it doesn't matter because their are too many teams in front of them to get in anyways.

If USC beats Washington and Texas/Florida wins out then who cares they aren't playing for their season any more than they are now.

The fallacy that the games mean so much now really needs to stop.

There's no guarantee that Florida gets in with a loss, none.

If Iowa wins out they probably don't get in over an undefeated Florida and Texas, but if you look at Iowa's schedule that makes sense, and I'm a Big Ten fan!! If anything this encourages teams like Iowa to schedule a big non-conference game (as opposed to scheduling Northern Iowa and Arkansas St and nearly losing both games).

My favorite is your last point, you've all but proved how much the games mean. You premise it on IF USC beat Washington, but the fact is that they didn't and now they are screwed, which shows how important a mid-season game against an average opponent is. You've just demonstrated why every single game matters.

I don't think I could have proven my point better myself, thanks.

I do admit that there are years when there are 3 teams that deserve to be in the title game, hence my backing of the plus one system. There's no need to blow up the whole thing when a tweak that small could eliminate a lot of the problems.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Can you explain to me where I am whining about USC not being in the mix?? They lost that game ...its the sole reason they arent in the mix. That being said, even if they had won that game, they still wouldnt be in the mix at the end if Texas and Florida win out...as they were both ranked higher to start the season.

And just to let you know...i am not pro playoff because i am a USC fan...in fact that has nothing to do with it. I am a college football fan. I want to see games decided on the field, not on voting sheets and in a computers hard drive.

Just as an example, assuming that things go pretty much as planned, would it not be cool to see Texas play Alabama with the winner taking on the victor of a Florida/Iowa matchup? Or Cincinnati play LSU with the winner getting a USC or Miami?

That scenario right now is impossible. Only because of the system in place. But there is no way you will convince me that such a scenario would somehow diminish the regular season. in fact I think it would enhance things dramatically as the regular season would then actually mean you get into such a schedule only if you are good enough to be in the top 8 or 16. Obviously polls would still have to be part of the mix...but at least the outcomes would be decided between the lines and any mistakes by voters/computers as to who is better would be straightened out with no dispute.

Both you an Moon seem to be mostly concerned about the prospect of an undefeated team not getting into the title game. Am I right? Because that's what you've both started out complaining about here.

A plus one system solves that problem!!!!!!!

And for the love of all things holy stop talking about a playoff with "the top 8 or 16". It's impossible to have it work that way. No conference in the country will sign on to something that doesn't include their champion, so let go of the idea that the best 8 teams will be playing off. I've been saying this for 5 pages, but it remains the case: Stop the detachment from reality!!

[moon]

Originally Posted by JayP

It's hard to project what happens in those games. If USC wins a couple close games at home against weak teams and Iowa dominates Ohio State in the Horseshoe it's hard to say what the voters do.

It may be too hard to predict what will happen I have just heard it from more than one source and trust those guys more than what I can predict the computer formulas will do.

So it's better to have a playoff system where not only does that loss not matter, but the team can afford 2 more and still find their way in.

Fairly unlikely, if not impossible, that a 3-loss USC team makes it into to a play-off.

And I am not saying that it is better, just that games don't mean anymore under the current system that they would under a play-off system.

There's been one.

Boise St., Utah and Auburn are 3 teams off the top of my head.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

There's no guarantee that Florida gets in with a loss, none.

There pretty much is a guarantee that a one-loss Florida team gets in if that one loss comes before the SEC championship. Whoever wins that game between Alabama-Florida gets in whether they lose before then or not.

Heck even a one loss Florida team with that loss coming in the SEC championship has a shot to be ahead of Iowa.

My favorite is your last point, you've all but proved how much the games mean. You premise it on IF USC beat Washington, but the fact is that they didn't and now they are screwed, which shows how important a mid-season game against an average opponent is. You've just demonstrated why every single game matters.

The USC loss doesn't mean anything as it did basically nothing at all to change their chances of getting into the NC game. Either way they still needed Texas to loss to get into the game.

Originally Posted by valo403

Both you an Moon seem to be mostly concerned about the prospect of an undefeated team not getting into the title game. Am I right? Because that's what you've both started out complaining about here.

My concern is that we get the best team winning the NC at the end of the year not the team who scheduled the easiest cupcakes and then got their conference refs to hand them two horrendous calls to keep them undefeated.

My other concern is the BS that games matter so much now. They are arguments against a play-off system, but the myth that games would mean less under it than they do no is not close to being a legit argument.

A plus one system solves that problem!!!!!!!

I have no problem with a plus one. It is a lot closer to a play-off system than being close to the BCS system so I surprised that a BCS supporter like yourself would like it.

And for the love of all things holy stop talking about a playoff with "the top 8 or 16". It's impossible to have it work that way. No conference in the country will sign on to something that doesn't include their champion, so let go of the idea that the best 8 teams will be playing off. I've been saying this for 5 pages, but it remains the case: Stop the detachment from reality!!

What does the conferences being morons have to do with talking about which is the right system to implement?

Sure it may not be likely to happen but that doesn't mean that people can't say that it is what they think should happen.

[valo403]

I have no problem with a plus one. It is a lot closer to a play-off system than being close to the BCS system so I surprised that a BCS supporter like yourself would like it.

Seriously Moon, have you read one of my posts so far?? I've been backing the plus one from the get go, and have even said that I'm all for a playoff if there's a workable solution, I've just never heard of one. If you can't be bothered to read anything and instead go to the "BCS supporter like yourself" crap I'll just pop you onto the ignore list and be done with it.

What does the conferences being morons have to do with talking about which is the right system to implement?

Sure it may not be likely to happen but that doesn't mean that people can't say that it is what they think should happen.

I think Mandy Moore should declare her undying love for me, I think that should happen. Doesn't mean that it's not completely unrealistic and a total waste of time to continue pretending that it's in the realm of possibility.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Seriously Moon, have you read one of my posts so far?? I've been backing the plus one from the get go, and have even said that I'm all for a playoff if there's a workable solution, I've just never heard of one. If you can't be bothered to read anything and instead go to the "BCS supporter like yourself" crap I'll just pop you onto the ignore list and be done with it.

Holy overreaction to a nothing comment. BCS supporter isn't meant as some sort of terrible insult so I am not sure why you can't say I support the plus-one not the BCS and leave it at that.

I have read your posts including the ones talking about how important games are now. Seemed like you were supporting the current system with your argument.

I think Mandy Moore should declare her undying love for me, I think that should happen. Doesn't mean that it's not completely unrealistic and a total waste of time to continue pretending that it's in the realm of possibility.

If you had legit reasons why it should happen then I am not sure a. why you shouldn't talk about it and b. why it wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.

You getting Mandy Moore and CFB adopting a play-off system aren't really that closely related as one has solid reasoning behind it and an actual shot of happening at one point.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

Holy overreaction to a nothing comment. BCS supporter isn't meant as some sort of terrible insult so I am not sure why you can't say I support the plus-one not the BCS and leave it at that.

I have read your posts including the ones talking about how important games are now. Seemed like you were supporting the current system with your argument.



If you had legit reasons why it should happen then I am not sure a. why you shouldn't talk about it and b. why it wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.

You getting Mandy Moore and CFB adopting a play-off system aren't really that closely related as one has solid reasoning behind it and an actual shot of happening at one point.

I don't consider it an overreaction when I have been explicit in countless posts that I want to see a plus-one system and that I'm for a playoff if a workable solution is found. If you'd bother to read you'd have no reason to think I was supporting the current system.

As for the second point, having legit reasons has nothing to do with it. This is the problem with the majority of people who push for a playoff, instead of trying to find solutions to the roadblocks they pretend like they aren't there. The reality is that any playoff system will need to be supported by the conferences, that's reality. There's really no debate there, a system being implemented without their support is about as realistic as me hooking up with a pop star turned actress. You can keep pretending it's not an issue and throwing out top 8/16 setups, but the point is that they aren't ever going to be implemented so why bother? How about trying to come up with solutions that take reality into account? I have respect for the plan Flip came up with a couple pages back because it was an attempt to work things out. I don't see any way that it will work, but it's better than beating on a clearly impossible idea over an over again like a 4 year old asking why they can't have more ice cream.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't consider it an overreaction when I have been explicit in countless posts that I want to see a plus-one system and that I'm for a playoff if a workable solution is found. If you'd bother to read you'd have no reason to think I was supporting the current system.

Whatever, you are welcome to be as grumpy about it as you want.

As for the second point, having legit reasons has nothing to do with it. This is the problem with the majority of people who push for a playoff, instead of trying to find solutions to the roadblocks they pretend like they aren't there. The reality is that any playoff system will need to be supported by the conferences, that's reality. There's really no debate there, a system being implemented without their support is about as realistic as me hooking up with a pop star turned actress. You can keep pretending it's not an issue and throwing out top 8/16 setups, but the point is that they aren't ever going to be implemented so why bother? How about trying to come up with solutions that take reality into account? I have respect for the plan Flip came up with a couple pages back because it was an attempt to work things out. I don't see any way that it will work, but it's better than beating on a clearly impossible idea over an over again like a 4 year old asking why they can't have more ice cream.

Things change and it isn't unreasonable to think that at some point the money will be bigger for the conferences to move to a play-off system.

There is no way that it is an impossible idea as things change all the time.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

Whatever, you are welcome to be as grumpy about it as you want.



Things change and it isn't unreasonable to think that at some point the money will be bigger for the conferences to move to a play-off system.

There is no way that it is an impossible idea as things change all the time.

Alright, well you just keep living in that make believe world then. I'll leave it to other people to actually come up with solutions and proposals.

[transplant99]

And for the love of all things holy stop talking about a playoff with "the top 8 or 16".

Get off your damn high horse and quit telling me what i can and cannot talk about.

You have made this an impossible discussion with your holier than thou and "i know everything" attitude.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Alright, well you just keep living in that make believe world then. I'll leave it to other people to actually come up with solutions and proposals.

Is that the same make believe world which supports your beloved plus one scenario?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

Is that the same make believe world which supports your beloved plus one scenario?

The plus one doesn't require a massive overhaul of the way in which postseason play operates. It's exactly what the name would lead you to believe, one more game. If anything it simply adds more income opportunities to the pot without taking anything away. There are obviously things that would have to be ironed out in terms of bowl alignments etc., but it's a whole lot different than a proposal that would require the conferences to sign on to something that could leave them completely in the dark and out hundreds of millions of dollars.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

The plus one doesn't require a massive overhaul of the way in which postseason play operates. It's exactly what the name would lead you to believe, one more game. If anything it simply adds more income opportunities to the pot without taking anything away. There are obviously things that would have to be ironed out in terms of bowl alignments etc., but it's a whole lot different than a proposal that would require the conferences to sign on to something that could leave them completely in the dark and out hundreds of millions of dollars.

I support the plus-one.

That's why I was asking if this make believe world I believe in supports your plus one idea only ideas that the great valo determines to be impossible, contrary to what experts think.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Get off your damn high horse and quit telling me what i can and cannot talk about.

You have made this an impossible discussion with your holier than thou and "i know everything" attitude.

How about you get the fact that a simple just take the top 8 format is completely unrealistic. There's no way you could get the conferences to sign on, and besides that issue it still leaves out the mid-majors almost ever year (and it'll get worse because teams will never schedule a Boise St or Utah if that loss could knock them out of the top 8. All non-conference games will be complete cupcakes so teams can ensure that they have the best possible record and therefore the best shot at a top 8 finish). A top 16 is a bit more palatable to the conferences, but it allows teams like Troy to reap the rewards of playoff participation while a 3rd place SEC team sits at home. Sorry, but I don't see the upside there and I don't see why the SEC would be up to hand a fistful of cash over to a Sun Belt team at the expense of one of their own.

I don't think I know everything on this, but I'm sick of hearing the same proposal over and over again. You don't counter the points I make as to why it isn't acceptable, you just keep pushing on through with your head in the clouds. If you can find a way to make it work I'm all for a playoff, but a little attachment to reality would be nice.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

I support the plus-one.

That's why I was asking if this make believe world I believe in supports your plus one idea only ideas that the great valo determines to be impossible, contrary to what experts think.

What experts? The guys at ESPN that get paid to push opinions?

Do you think the playoff and the plus one are comparable in terms of the changes they bring? You think they're equally palatable to the conferences?

Your argument for why the playoff could work is that "at some point the money will be bigger". Sure, yes at some point the money could be big enough for the playoff to work, but since when are but-ifs an argument? But if x happens y is possible, that's all well and good but then the issue turns to how do you make x happen. You've just taken things back a step, which is great and pretty much what I've been saying needs to be done, but without that question being answered you don't get to the end result.