or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NCAA College Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 NCAA College Football - Page 14

post #235 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

If you want better bowl games ditch the AQs.

 

 

We have different definitions of good bowl games.  You want to see the teams paired on some objective merit standard, I want to see the champions from the major conferences play each other in the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc.  I like the traditional conference tie-ins and matchups in the different bowls.  I like knowing that if Texas has a good (9 wins or better) season, we're either going to the Fiesta, the Holiday, or the Cotton Bowl.  That's more important to me.

 

And if you didn't reserve spots for non-AQs, they'd never have a chance to play in a big bowl.  It's nearly impossible most seasons for a Fresno St. to get into the top-8 even if they run the table.  If you don't have reserved spots for the AQs and the other spots reserved for non-AQs then the non-AQs would never get picked.  The dollars will always point to a 10-2, 14th ranked Texas to take the at-large spot in the Sugar Bowl over any undefeated Boise, Utah, UCF, or Fresno St.  I think if you're going to stick to a 12 game season and keep conferences (which is hugely important to me) then you have to tie those conferences into the big bowls.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

I honestly think divisions are the most unfair method of organizing and finding a true champion. I like a round robin style, everyone plays everyone, at least to the best of the ability of what can be scheduled. How many times has a better ACC team get bumped to a crappy bowl. If you want better bowl games ditch the AQs.

 

I've already said I don't think finding a "true champion" is the most important goal of a college football season.  It's making every conference and every rivalry and matchup as exciting and relevant as it can be.

 

And I can't recall a time in recent memory when the #2 or #3 team in the ACC got hosed out of a bowl or got "bumped to a crappy bowl" by an AQ conference champion (unless you're talking about the Big East or something, but again I wouldn't give an AQ to the BE or the AAC or whatever it is now).  The ACC usually has, at most, two good teams, and rarely has had a team with a true shot at the BCSC.  Has any ACC team besides Florida State ever truly had a shot at a BCS Championship game?  Okay maybe Miami like a hundred years ago.

 

It's more likely that Alabama would record their only loss of the season at the SEC Championship in some fluke and then be stuck in the Peach Bowl while clearly inferior teams (for argument's sake let's say Texas and Fresno St.) get BCS Bowl games.  Or you have the weird Texas-Oklahoma-TTU threesome from a few years ago where they had to go to a tiebreaker to decide which team would play in the Big-12 Championship, and all three teams were ranked in the top-5.  And to that scenario I say tough--win your conference and you can play.  Or more appropriately I say you don't have much of a gripe about being excluded from NC discussions when you didn't even win your conference.

post #236 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

We have different definitions of good bowl games.  You want to see the teams paired on some objective merit standard, I want to see the champions from the major conferences play each other in the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc.  I like the traditional conference tie-ins and matchups in the different bowls.  I like knowing that if Texas has a good (9 wins or better) season, we're either going to the Fiesta, the Holiday, or the Cotton Bowl.  That's more important to me.

 

And if you didn't reserve spots for non-AQs, they'd never have a chance to play in a big bowl.  It's nearly impossible most seasons for a Fresno St. to get into the top-8 even if they run the table.  If you don't have reserved spots for the AQs and the other spots reserved for non-AQs then the non-AQs would never get picked.  The dollars will always point to a 10-2, 14th ranked Texas to take the at-large spot in the Sugar Bowl over any undefeated Boise, Utah, UCF, or Fresno St.  I think if you're going to stick to a 12 game season and keep conferences (which is hugely important to me) then you have to tie those conferences into the big bowls.

 

 

I've already said I don't think finding a "true champion" is the most important goal of a college football season.  It's making every conference and every rivalry and matchup as exciting and relevant as it can be.

 

And I can't recall a time in recent memory when the #2 or #3 team in the ACC got hosed out of a bowl or got "bumped to a crappy bowl" by an AQ conference champion (unless you're talking about the Big East or something, but again I wouldn't give an AQ to the BE or the AAC or whatever it is now).  The ACC usually has, at most, two good teams, and rarely has had a team with a true shot at the BCSC.  Has any ACC team besides Florida State ever truly had a shot at a BCS Championship game?  Okay maybe Miami like a hundred years ago.

 

It's more likely that Alabama would record their only loss of the season at the SEC Championship in some fluke and then be stuck in the Peach Bowl while clearly inferior teams (for argument's sake let's say Texas and Fresno St.) get BCS Bowl games.  Or you have the weird Texas-Oklahoma-TTU threesome from a few years ago where they had to go to a tiebreaker to decide which team would play in the Big-12 Championship, and all three teams were ranked in the top-5.  And to that scenario I say tough--win your conference and you can play.  Or more appropriately I say you don't have much of a gripe about being excluded from NC discussions when you didn't even win your conference.

 

For me I want bowl games that are good matches. I don't want to a see a 8-3 ACC team in a BCS bowl game. If FSU loses to a VT team in the ACC championship game, then FSU will got a lower tier bowl game. So instead of validating an awesome season they had, going 11-1, we are saying, tough shit your going to face an opponent you are going to crush by 40 points. I don't think they should be making an incentive for mediocrity by allowing a team who hasn't shown up all year to suddenly get into a BCS bowl game. 

 

You don't have to tie them to bowl games. If a non big conference team goes 12-0 and gets into the top 15 of the BCS rankings then the BCS bowls can pick them if they want. If you eliminate AQ's then they have to pick and choose. I say they MUST pick and choose from the top 15 teams, and no conference can have more than 2 teams in the BCS bowls. In such a case then they can go outside the top 15. This would make the most intriguing match ups. All I care about is good football match ups. I want exciting games, not blow outs. 

post #237 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

If a non big conference team goes 12-0 and gets into the top 15 of the BCS rankings then the BCS bowls can pick them if they want.

 

But they are never going to "want" to pick Houston (even with mighty Case Keenum at the helm) when they have the option to pick Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, etc, even if Houston and Case are 11-1 with their only loss coming in OT to a top-10 team and every other win was a 30-point blowout.  Houston Cougar alums are not going to fill the stands in Pasadena.  They're not going to spend $500 million on hats and t-shirts.

 

Getting Cinderella to the ball will always be a problem unless you find a way to guarantee her a seat on the carriage.  I'd much rather see FSU get screwed over because they couldn't get it done against the Yeller-Jackets in the ACC Championship than see top-8 matchups between 3 SEC teams, 2 Big-12 teams, 2 Pac-12 teams, and one ACC team that didn't win it's conference.

 

Again, we just have different ideas about what's good.  But my idea is better.  :smartass:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

I don't want to a see a 8-3 ACC team in a BCS bowl game. If FSU loses to a VT team in the ACC championship game, then FSU will got a lower tier bowl game. So instead of validating an awesome season they had, going 11-1, we are saying, tough shit your going to face an opponent you are going to crush by 40 points. I don't think they should be making an incentive for mediocrity by allowing a team who hasn't shown up all year to suddenly get into a BCS bowl game.

 

And they're not making an incentive for mediocrity.  I don't think any college football team is going to say "hey guys, we can take a knee for these next two games because as long as we beat FSU in the ACC Championship we'll still get to play in Miami.  So let's save our energy for that one."

 

The team that earned their way into their conference championship, and then won it, won their conference championship.  They are the champions of that conference.  I'm thinking of the Kansas State-Oklahoma debacle back in like 2003 when OU was undefeated going into the Big-12 Championship and got throttled by K-State who was like 8-4 or something.  Yeah, that was a sad result and OU certainly thought they were headed to a BCS Championship that year, but they didn't get it done.  (IIRC OU still went to the Sugar Bowl and lost that too.)

 

There was another example maybe from 4 years ago when UGA missed out on the SEC Championship, and the team from the East that went lost, so UGA was ranked higher going into bowl selection than either of the teams that played in the SEC Championship.  Whatever--again I'm not so much concerned about whether the NCAA identifies a BCS Champion as having good, relevant and exciting games.  And those situations are certainly exciting.


Edited by k-troop - 11/12/13 at 5:04pm
post #238 of 692
BCS Standings
RK TEAM RECORD
1 Ohio State 11-1
2 LSU 11-2
3 Virginia Tech 11-2
4 Oklahoma 11-2
5 Georgia 10-2
6 Missouri 11-2
7 USC 10-2
8 Kansas 11-1
9 West Virginia 10-2
10 Hawaii 12-0
11 Arizona State 10-2
12 Florida 9-3
13 Illinois 9-3
14 Boston College 10-3
15 Clemson 9-3

 

Here's the rankings at bowl selection for the 2007 season (so rankings after the conference championships were over).  Ohio St. did their usual:  blew out the weak Big-10 conference and wet themselves in the BCSC against the SEC Champ.  UGA lost the head-to-head to Tennessee so Tennessee got the SEC Championship spot for the east, then wet themselves to LSU.  UGA didn't even play in their conference championship game, but ended up getting a BCS Bowl Bid to play the mighty Hawaii Warriors in the Sugar Bowl.  Hawaii was 12-0 going into bowl selection but ranked behind 9 teams with losses and 7 teams with 2 losses.  And of course UGA destroyed Hawaii, who ended the season ranked like 20th.  UGA finished the season ranked #2 behind LSU, the BCS Champ.

 

I don't know what point, if any, I'm trying to make here except this:  rankings, conferences, and etc. make for some cool ass scenarios and discussions for the college football fan.  I lived in Savannah GA for 3-1/2 years and have a LOT of buddies that are UGA Bulldog grads.  This was a crazy year for them, and we had some crazy discussions about scenarios.  That was a really, really cool football year.

post #239 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

For me I want bowl games that are good matches. I don't want to a see a 8-3 ACC team in a BCS bowl game. If FSU loses to a VT team in the ACC championship game, then FSU will got a lower tier bowl game. So instead of validating an awesome season they had, going 11-1, we are saying, tough shit your going to face an opponent you are going to crush by 40 points. I don't think they should be making an incentive for mediocrity by allowing a team who hasn't shown up all year to suddenly get into a BCS bowl game.

And I think this is more of an argument against conference championship games than it is an argument against automatic qualifers in the BCS bowls or (perhaps) future playoffs.  They are following a model that works great for basketball.  The conference tournaments are exciting and they give many teams (in some leagues EVERY team) a chance, in theory, of making the Big Dance, while not at all risking the playoff chances of the big boys ... they're all going anyways.

 

Football doesn't have that luxury, so you force people into conference championship games and you take the risk of screwing up your leagues best chance at glory.  If this was basketball, Fresno State would be a 5 or 6 seed regardless of what happens in the Mountain West Championship.  However, in football, if they lose to (probably) Boise State in a rematch, then they just went from the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl against a team like Baylor, Texas or Auburn (and a several million dollar payout) to the New Mexico Bowl or Hawaii Bowl against Middle Tennessee or Oregon State and a payout that won't even cover travel expenses.

 

Of course, you take away the Championship games and now you have different problems.  You get the UCLA team that goes undefeated and wins the conference ahead of Arizona State or USC because this year they didn't have to play Oregon or Stanford.  Or the Florida team that wins the SEC by beating Vandy, Kentucky and Ole Miss, while Georgia, Bama and LSU all beat each other.

 

Again, all the different ideas are fun, but no solution is perfect.  The only thing we do know, and I know we agree on is:  College football is freaking awesome!!!

post #240 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

And I think this is more of an argument against conference championship games than it is an argument against automatic qualifers in the BCS bowls or (perhaps) future playoffs.

 

Again, all the different ideas are fun, but no solution is perfect.  The only thing we do know, and I know we agree on is:  College football is freaking awesome!!!

 

100% agree Drew, it's ultimately up to the conference to decide how they want their champion declared.  I think back to the Texas-OU-TTU threesome mess and just shake my head, but those were the conference rules.  It TOTALLY SUCKED to see Texas excluded from the Big-12 Championship (and thus a possible BCSC) because we got our loss on week 11 and OU got theirs on week 5 (which is essentially what the polls came down to).  And our loss was basically one unbelievable play by Michael Crabtree who was and will always be one of the greatest NCAAFB wide-receivers ever.

 

I think the Big-12 has a better chance now of getting a true champion just going off of conference record, head-to-head tiebreakers, and then overall record.  You eliminate the chance of a super-weak North Division coming in and stealing the conference title in a fluke game.  But you know with 100% certainty that if any particular conference thought it was in their interests to eliminate the conference championship, then they would.

 

But they don't.  Conferences are scrambling like hell to get to the 12-team mark so they can have a conference championship game because that one game makes like $100 million (not an official figure but seems like that's the number I've heard) for the conference.  So in the occasional year when the conference championship game produces a non-champion, then you say "that sucks."  But every team in the conference benefits from having that game, and not just their football programs--all of the sports programs across the conference benefit from that money.

post #241 of 692

Took our 14 year-old daughter up to her first ever game this weekend......  Homecoming.  We stayed the weekend and showed her the entire campus and gave her a taste of college life.  A small taste, but still a real eye opener for her to say the least!

 

 

1000

 

Didn't hurt that they buried poor Syracuse either......and Winston never took a snap in the second half.  They're beasts this year, make no mistake.

post #242 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

Took our 14 year-old daughter up to her first ever game this weekend......  Homecoming.  We stayed the weekend and showed her the entire campus and gave her a taste of college life.  A small taste, but still a real eye opener for her to say the least!

 

 

1000

 

Didn't hurt that they buried poor Syracuse either......and Winston never took a snap in the second half.  They're beasts this year, make no mistake.

 

Good times. Alabama didn't look that good this week despite the win. FSU has a stronger offense in comparison and I think their defense is pretty remarkable too. If the title game is between Bama and FSU, I feel FSU will put up the better fight. 

 

I thoroughly enjoyed watching USC finally beat Stanford after a 4 year losing streak. The last two seasons, I was so used to USC stalling towards the end of the second half to give the win to the opposing team. There still needs a lot of things to go their way for a Rose Bowl bid, which I'm doubtful it will happen. But I'll just remain hopeful. 

post #243 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPMPIRE View Post
 

 

Good times. Alabama didn't look that good this week despite the win. FSU has a stronger offense in comparison and I think their defense is pretty remarkable too. If the title game is between Bama and FSU, I feel FSU will put up the better fight.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed watching USC finally beat Stanford after a 4 year losing streak. The last two seasons, I was so used to USC stalling towards the end of the second half to give the win to the opposing team. There still needs a lot of things to go their way for a Rose Bowl bid, which I'm doubtful it will happen. But I'll just remain hopeful.

 

I agree about Alabama on Saturday....but I still think they're better than they looked there.  If it ends up that way, AL/FSU will be a helluva game.

 

OSU hung a big number on Illinois, but allowed 35 points.....! Not all that impressive.  I still say my Badgers would give them another good game, just as they did early in the year.  Wisconsin is one of the most under-ranked teams out there right now.....heck, they played Indiana a LOT better than OSU played Illinois, and Indian has the better record of the two.

 

USC looked good.....and did it with Game Day there too!   :beer:

post #244 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

I agree about Alabama on Saturday....but I still think they're better than they looked there.  If it ends up that way, AL/FSU will be a helluva game.

 

OSU hung a big number on Illinois, but allowed 35 points.....! Not all that impressive.  I still say my Badgers would give them another good game, just as they did early in the year.  Wisconsin is one of the most under-ranked teams out there right now.....heck, they played Indiana a LOT better than OSU played Illinois, and Indian has the better record of the two.

 

USC looked good.....and did it with Game Day there too!   :beer:

 

That was with OSU having 3 starting D-lineman out for most of the game, and only 1 starting linebacker. We had a linebacker playing the Mike position, which he never played before. So lets give credit here, OSU's defense, with little depth, and basically no linebackers held Illinois, a team that averaged 30.2 points a game, to 35 points, 7 of which came from a punt return. I don't mind this win, though what concerned me was the fact we had a few to many three and outs. It should have been near 80-90 to 35 with the way they couldn't stop our offense 80% of the time. 

 

Guess what it doesn't really matter what Wisconsin could do now, they didn't get the job done when they faced OSU. :beer:

post #245 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

That was with OSU having 3 starting D-lineman out for most of the game, and only 1 starting linebacker. We had a linebacker playing the Mike position, which he never played before. So lets give credit here, OSU's defense, with little depth, and basically no linebackers held Illinois, a team that averaged 30.2 points a game, to 35 points, 7 of which came from a punt return. I don't mind this win, though what concerned me was the fact we had a few to many three and outs. It should have been near 80-90 to 35 with the way they couldn't stop our offense 80% of the time.

 

Guess what it doesn't really matter what Wisconsin could do now, they didn't get the job done when they faced OSU. :beer:

 

Did you hear Urban's comments about the BCS and playoff system?  He's already preparing to finish the season ranked 4th behind Bama, FSU, and Baylor.

 

Ordinarily I'd agree with his beef, but this year I think we have a clear #1 and #2 (assuming Bama takes care of business at Auburn and in Atlanta). and everyone else is just playing for a conference championship and auto-BCS bowl bid.

post #246 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

We had a linebacker playing the Mike position ...

OK, I have apparently been out of football for way too long.  (Another reminder that I'm old)  When I played, the "Mike" position was the middle linebacker.  What does it mean now?

post #247 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

Did you hear Urban's comments about the BCS and playoff system?  He's already preparing to finish the season ranked 4th behind Bama, FSU, and Baylor.

 

Ordinarily I'd agree with his beef, but this year I think we have a clear #1 and #2 (assuming Bama takes care of business at Auburn and in Atlanta). and everyone else is just playing for a conference championship and auto-BCS bowl bid.

 

How is it a clear number 1 & 2? 

 

What if in a playoff OSU goes in an cleans house. Does that mean that the big ten is better than the SEC? I mean if OSU whips on, lets say Alabama, does that devalue Alabama's schedule, or the SEC. Or is it completely plausible that when comparing traditional elite programs like an OSU, USC, Alabama, FSU, that strength of schedule is diminished greatly because of the talent and coaching?

 

I am fine with Urban's comments. He's a realist, he knows the uphill battle OSU has to get into the title game. He knows they are being judged unfairly due to their schedule. He'll just use the information to get his players angry. Coaching angry players is easy. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

OK, I have apparently been out of football for way too long.  (Another reminder that I'm old)  When I played, the "Mike" position was the middle linebacker.  What does it mean now?

 

The guy was an outside linebacker, practiced as an outside linebacker. Its a totally different spot. You train athletes for one position. To put someone in a different position, ask him to fire on different information that he has to react to, is tough. That's why you see inside D-lineman might struggle on the outside, its a totally different technique.

post #248 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

The guy was an outside linebacker, practiced as an outside linebacker. Its a totally different spot. You train athletes for one position. To put someone in a different position, ask him to fire on different information that he has to react to, is tough. That's why you see inside D-lineman might struggle on the outside, its a totally different technique.

OK, but the way you wrote it was weird.  Like saying "They've had so many injuries that one of their infielders was forced to play shortstop!!!"

 

On the other hand ... it shouldn't be that hard.  Besides, all teams have to deal with injuries.  How about Miles Jack, you seen this guy?  He's a linebacker (for UCLA) who has 190 yards rushing and 5 touchdowns in the last 2 games. ;)

 

Also, I went and read the Meyer comments and I don't get it.  He knows they already agreed to start a playoff, so what is their to complain about?

post #249 of 692
Quote:

Last year for the BCS. Having been a coach throughout the BCS era, what do you think of it? How do you think people will look back on it? Has this been the best way to decide who plays for the national championship?


COACH MEYER: Without spending much time on it, because it's not fair for our team to do that. I will say this: I think it's a flawed system. When you logically think about it, what the BCS people have done, which obviously we're all part of it, I think it was great for a while.

I think it took an imperfect system and did the best you can without a playoff. There's going to be controversy in playoffs, too, now. There's not a 64 team playoff. You're going to have four guys. What is that fifth team going to feel like? So...

 

Basically Urban is saying that the BCS got it right majority of the time, but it wasn't perfect. Basically the BSC got lucky 9 out of 10 times with having one or two undefeated teams at the end. Of course there will be controversy, but you know what, life isn't fair. I don't want to see a 64 team playoff. You will not find a true champion that way, and it will diminish the regular season of football. Keep it to 8 teams or less. I want to see elite teams, who are all similar in ability, fight it out. I think the top 8 is that threshold. I know you can say something for the 9 or 10, but playoffs are funny on the strict number of teams you can enter with out getting to weird with byes to the 2nd round. 

post #250 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

That was with OSU having 3 starting D-lineman out for most of the game, and only 1 starting linebacker. We had a linebacker playing the Mike position, which he never played before. So lets give credit here, OSU's defense, with little depth, and basically no linebackers held Illinois, a team that averaged 30.2 points a game, to 35 points, 7 of which came from a punt return. I don't mind this win, though what concerned me was the fact we had a few to many three and outs. It should have been near 80-90 to 35 with the way they couldn't stop our offense 80% of the time. 

Guess what it doesn't really matter what Wisconsin could do now, they didn't get the job done when they faced OSU. c2_beer.gif

No argument. OSU is a little better team than Wisconsin this year, but not a lot.....

........but not even in the same league as AL or FSU.
post #251 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


No argument. OSU is a little better team than Wisconsin this year, but not a lot.....

........but not even in the same league as AL or FSU.

 

How do you know that? Wisconsin and OSU hasn't played either AL or FSU. 

post #252 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

No argument. OSU is a little better team than Wisconsin this year, but not a lot.....

........but not even in the same league as AL or FSU.
That is 100% factually correct. OSU is in the Big 10, Bama and FSU are not. ;)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NCAA College Football