College Football 2007

[kain4521]

The season is getting close to starting Go Vols!!!!!!

[Myers, Michael]

Can't wait. Nebraska football is a yearlong discussion around here on our local sports radio and tv. Go Huskers!

[sCabbOy]

I used to love college football living in Gainesville Florida with The Gators and a little upstate The Seminoles, and coming from South Carolina (Go Cocks) and even living in Georgia (Go Dawgs)...

Now living in Buffalo, NY (Um... go Bulls? ) there's really no hype over college football here. I miss it.

[The Dream Master]

...and coming from South Carolina (Go Cocks)...

Scab, you are dead to me after that.


Signed,

The Dream Master, your friendly neighborhood Clemson student

;)

[Gringo Loco]

All I have to say is Hook 'Em Horns!

I wish Texas would get another good quarterback like Vince Young, but sadly I don't think we'll see something like that happen for at least another 10 years. I'll remain optimistic nonetheless.

[Myers, Michael]

I don't know. I mean while he's not as good as Vince Young, Colt McCoy is a pretty good quarterback. You don't like him?

[Special Killa B]

I just hope my Buckeyes can pick up the pieces of their shattered season they left behind in the National Championship!

It'll be hard to tell what kind of season they'll have without Troy Smith and Ted Ginn Jr.

[Titan]

Can't wait to see what Michigan has this year! Hope they can beat the Buckeyes this year. :) Sorry Special!

[Gringo Loco]

I don't know. I mean while he's not as good as Vince Young, Colt McCoy is a pretty good quarterback. You don't like him?


I don't care for Colt. Actually I hope Mack Brown has found a new QB for this season, I dislike Colt that much.

[Myers, Michael]

Oh I see. I kind of thought he was a bit overrated myself.

[Gringo Loco]

I forget what game it was, but he tried to rush in a TD and failed, and he's not a big guy. I think he tried that four times and failed to make it in each time. So someone's at fault here and I'm not going to blame Mack Brown, he got us one championship.

[nickmeece]

Curious to see how Notre Dame is going to bounce back...they had a strong, champsionship-contending team, but they're all "pros" now. Oh well...as long is Charlie Weis is there, they got a shot.

[Killa Pimp]

Being from the old Tarheel state and living within 40 minutes from Basketball heaven, UNC:), NC State, Duke(:mad:), Wake Forest. Even though I am a huge Carolina fan -
I will the first to admit.
The state of NC's college football team's suck.
The ACC in Florida is not doing so hot also.

(But just wait till B-ball season)

Should be an interesting year all around though.

I read somewhere that BCS is trying to adapt a Final four Playoff system.
That's cool if it happens, but I doubt the president's of the colleges would go for it and you have a Boise state every year on the outside looking in.

But its a helluva lot better than what we have.

[The Dream Master]

Um, Killa Pimp, you realize that Wake Forest was the champion of the ACC last year, right? :p

I'd also like to note that Clemson beat them, but failed to beat a middling Maryland team. Had they beaten the latter, they would have gone to the championship game.

Yes, I'm very bitter about last year's season. :shifty:

[Killa Pimp]

[QUOTE=The Dream Master;8575]Um, Killa Pimp, you realize that Wake Forest was the champion of the ACC last year, right? :p

Yeah DM they did:

What's that old southern saying, every dog's @$$ has its day in the sun.
They did it with Stellar defense and mediocre offense. But they still did it.
It reminded me of the Ravens super bowl run.
It was hard watching their games last year. But I'm not going to complain.

I'm a huge tarheel fan, but I went to a few of Duke home football games.
I mean, why pay $60 to watch Carolina and be disappointed when I can go watch Duke and Miami for $15 and get a good seat and still see some decent teams. (That was a surprisingly awesome game by the way).

Clemson just made me mad last year. They started out just tearing teams up, then it just fell apart. Hopefully they'll keep it together this year.

The ACC is definitely going to be interesting this year with the coaching changes @ Carolina, State and Miami. Definitely a cool year to be an ACC football fan.

[The Dream Master]

The ACC is going to be wide fucking open, especially the Atlantic Division. I honestly think anyone (except maybe NC State) can win it.

KP, I'd be really happy if your Tar Heels could beat the shit out of South Carolina during their meeting this year. Spurrier obviously wants to get that rivalry started because he probably thinks it's the only one he'd be able to win consistently.

[Killa Pimp]

[QUOTE= KP, I'd be really happy if your Tar Heels could beat the shit out of South Carolina during their meeting this year. Spurrier obviously wants to get that rivalry started because he probably thinks it's the only one he'd be able to win consistently.[/QUOTE]

I know, But that's a tall order within itself with all the changes at UNC over the past off - season and SC has a good core coming back.
And if SC actually beats Florida - just think of all the " is SC for real this year Talk??" ESPN would be all Spurrier, all the time.:eek:

[bearholic247]

Well the season has started off with a huge upset. Appalachian State has upset #5 Michigan 34-32. I think what makes it even more shocking was that it was in front of 100,000 or so at Michigan Stadium.

[Special Killa B]

Well the season has started off with a huge upset. Appalachian State has upset #5 Michigan 34-32.

Being a big Ohio State fan all I have to say is


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:V6whHk45bWRW7M:www.seomoz.org/images/upload/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

[The Dream Master]

Seeing as how I don't live too terribly far from Boone, NC (where App State is from), I knew that they're a damn good football team (they are the 2-time defending champions of 1-AA, after all). I thought that they could perhaps make the game with Michigan interesting for a half, but I never thought in a million years that they'd win at the Big House. Absolutely unbelievable.

[Special Killa B]

Once again here's too all you Michigan fans as Oregon crushes the almighty Wolverines! :lmao:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:V6whHk45bWRW7M:www.seomoz.org/images/upload/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg


And Ohio State goes 2-0 with a 20-2 W on Akron!

[Killa Pimp]

Once again here's too all you Michigan fans as Oregon crushes the almighty Wolverines! :lmao:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:V6whHk45bWRW7M:www.seomoz.org/images/upload/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg


And Ohio State goes 2-0 with a 20-2 W on Akron!

Co-signs the Michigan sentiment and adds Notre Dame Joining the winless division of '07.

Think the Admin jumped a little too soon on a 10 year coaching contract??:dead:

[The Dream Master]

Clemson improved to 2-0 this week after thrashing UL-Monroe 49-26. Fortunately, there was no let-down after beating FSU earlier in the week, and we're currently ranked #20 in both polls.

It would have been a perfect weekend had Georgia beaten South Carolina. I personally think UGA was a bit over-rated, but there's no excuse to losing to Carolina at home like that. Oh well, I'm guessing they'll get their's in a couple of weeks when they travel to LSU.

Week 4 update:

And indeed, Carolina did get their's yesterday. An absolutely dominant performance by LSU that proved that Carolina isn't nearly the team they think they are.

Oh, and Clemson is #13 in the nation after destroying NC State on the road. If they can win a crucial road battle at Georiga Tech coming up this Saturday, then I think big things can happen for this team this year.

[Myers, Michael]

Well on Monday Nebraska Athletic Director Steve Pederson was fired. Yesterday, the great former Husker coach Dr. Tom Osborne was named the interim Athletic Director. Great news in my opinion. Wonder how much long before Coach Callahan gets canned.

[Killa Pimp]

End of the season... Its no point to let him go now. The only people on his staff to bring up are running Callahan's' weak @$$ offense. They will probably just write this off for the rest of the season and can him the day after their last game or bowl.


I bet those Athletic department meetings are uncomfortable.

[Myers, Michael]

I think us getting into a bowl game is giving this team too much credit. The team quit on Callahan.

[Killa Pimp]

I think us getting into a bowl game is giving this team too much credit. The team quit on Callahan.

Well, he does have a history of teams quitting on him:D

[Fowlees]

What the hell has happened to the Jayhawks this year. Theyve turned into a powerhouse....how long will it last for though? i reckon they are gona drop like a stone. This is one crazy crazy season all round. Ohio state are one of the worst sides to be ranked number 1 for years.

Whos gonna make the championship game?

[Special Killa B]

Whos gonna make the championship game?


Ohio State!

[Fowlees]

Ohio State!

I'd have to agree with you, but who do you think they will be playin against?

Its hard to call, but i'd say L.S.U. They look pretty strong.

I saw one of Ohio States finest, Ted Ginn Jr. playin for the Fins at wembley last week. He's fast..like shit off a shovel as we say here in blighty.

What happened to my boys, the Cornhuskers.....conceeding 76 points to the Jayhawks in Lincoln....What a travesty.:cry:

[Special Killa B]

I'd have to agree with you, but who do you think they will be playin against?

Its hard to call, but i'd say L.S.U. They look pretty strong.

I saw one of Ohio States finest, Ted Ginn Jr. playin for the Fins at wembley last week. He's fast..like shit off a shovel as we say here in blighty.

What happened to my boys, the Cornhuskers.....conceeding 76 points to the Jayhawks in Lincoln....What a travesty.:cry:

Boston College was one of my other choices but FSU stopped that yesterday. L.S.U. is looking strong at #2, As long as Ohio State can get past Michigan my pick is:

Ohio State vs LSU in the championship

[Myers, Michael]

I'd have to agree with you, but who do you think they will be playin against?

Its hard to call, but i'd say L.S.U. They look pretty strong.

I saw one of Ohio States finest, Ted Ginn Jr. playin for the Fins at wembley last week. He's fast..like shit off a shovel as we say here in blighty.

What happened to my boys, the Cornhuskers.....conceeding 76 points to the Jayhawks in Lincoln....What a travesty.:cry:

Our Huskers are in a sad state right now. The game was actually in Lawrence though not Lincoln. But they have been getting beat pretty bad in Lincoln too. It's only a matter of time before the seasons over, Callahan's gone, and we can start looking forward to the future.

[The Dream Master]

I might sound crazy, but I think Oregon should be number two in the polls this week. They soundly beat an unbeaten ASU team that was ranked 4th in the nation, while LSU really hasn't defeated anyone in an SEC that is overrated this year. I guess you could say that each team's losses are comparable (Oregon to Cal, and LSU to Kentucky), but I think Oregon has beaten some better teams.

Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if we had a playoff system in place, but I digress.

[Fowlees]

Our Huskers are in a sad state right now. The game was actually in Lawrence though not Lincoln. But they have been getting beat pretty bad in Lincoln too. It's only a matter of time before the seasons over, Callahan's gone, and we can start looking forward to the future.

We seemed to be slowly improving each year since the introduction of the west coast offence. I thought this season was gonna bear some fruit. I was hoping for a top 15 finish. We started well enough but its just gone steadily downhill.

I yearn for the glory days of the 1990,s.

Incidentally, when i was younger i spent some time living and working in Lincoln and there seemed to be a difference of opinion of who our biggest rivals are. Some people said Kansas Jayhawks, while others said Colorado Buffs.......

Whats your opinion on this boss?

[Harmonic Bond]

Well, yesterday was the best week yet this year in college football. I've been waiting all year for that questionable OSU team to slide off of their cream puff (Michigan aside) schedule. No offense to the fans here (I know there are some), but Ohio State is just not a top 5 team. They're good, and have some nice young talent, but they belong around the 9 or 10 spot. They'll be a good fit for the rose bowl against about an equivalent Arizona State. The Rose Bowl will be one of the best bowl games behind .......

Oregon vs. LSU. Can't wait, should be an awesome matchup. As long as LSU doesn't boner up the SEC title game, it should be a lock. Oklahoma vs. Oregon would be a nice consolation, as I really don't think the Jayhawks will be able to take the OU in the probable Big 12 title game. Of course, if Kansas pulls it off, I would have a morbid curiosity in seeing them in the title game, but ..... I just don't think the Oregon/LSU talent and for the latter, coaching is there. Kansas in kinda in there with the likes of Arizona State and Ohio State. Good, but hard to read because of their schedule.

As for adopting a single-elimination playoff system ..... thanks, but no thanks. I honestly can't remember a year when the bowl system didn't produce a champion, that, in my humble opinion, was the best in the land. There was some controversy a few years back when an undefeated Auburn got locked out of the title game. However, as a graduate of Auburn, I can say that the Auburn team in question was not nearly as good as USC or Oklahoma that year. Also, you might say that a playoff system may have produced a SEC vs. SEC title game matchup last year, which in hindsight seems more appropriate. Conversely, these single elimination playoffs almost consistently weed out the best teams. People like the system because it's more objective, more logical. However, just because it's more logical does not mean it's more accurate in picking the best team. I can't remember the last time I agreed with the NCAA basketball champion. Last year's Florida team, for instance, did not particularly impress me. Same thing for the NFL. Although I think the Colts were the best team last year, the Steelers two seasons back was a jaw dropper. It's just not consistent enough. Now, multiple game elimination play offs are another can o' worms. Although I hate baseball, I like the playoff system, and I think it picks the right champion year in and out. Unfortunately, not really implementable in college football.

[The Dream Master]

You honestly think the Cardinals were the best team in baseball last year? Baseball's all about getting hot at the right time, so I think it's very questionable when a team like St. Louis wins it all. However, when it comes to winning championships, it's not about who the best team was all year--it's about rising to the challenge and winning games when it matters the most.

College football needs a playoff system, plain and simple. This year will prove that again when there are a ton of 1-loss teams out there with no real objective way to pick one over the other. It's different when the BCS gets lucky and ends up with two undefeated teams, but that just doesn't happen very often. The thing is, it'd be an easy fix, and here's how you do it:

Make Notre Dame join the Big Ten (er, Big Eleven, really) so that there's twelve teams in that conference and split it up into divisions so there's a championship game. Do the same thing for the Pac Ten and Big East. This way, there's already a de-facto playoff system built in. Take all the conference champions (there'd be six), and take the two highest ranked non-BCS schools (so the likes of Boise St. and Hawaii have a shot). Bingo, eight-team playoff system--you'd have seven games, so you just use all the existing BCS sites for the first round(Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange), then re-use two of the sites for the second round, and then play the championship game like they do now. It wouldn't change a thing, really, except determine the champion on the field instead of leaving it up to an objective guess. Who's to say Auburn wasn't as good as Oklahoma or USC that year? We don't know that because they didn't determine it on the field.

Seriously, who's going to sit there and say "I don't know, do I really want to watch more football?" No one would say that--it'd be extremely lucrative and makes perfect sense.

[Special Killa B]

My Buckeyes may of lost but...........

SO DID MICHIGAN!!!!!!


HA HA!!!!

[Harmonic Bond]

You honestly think the Cardinals were the best team in baseball last year? Baseball's all about getting hot at the right time, so I think it's very questionable when a team like St. Louis wins it all. However, when it comes to winning championships, it's not about who the best team was all year--it's about rising to the challenge and winning games when it matters the most.

College football needs a playoff system, plain and simple. This year will prove that again when there are a ton of 1-loss teams out there with no real objective way to pick one over the other. It's different when the BCS gets lucky and ends up with two undefeated teams, but that just doesn't happen very often. The thing is, it'd be an easy fix, and here's how you do it:

Make Notre Dame join the Big Ten (er, Big Eleven, really) so that there's twelve teams in that conference and split it up into divisions so there's a championship game. Do the same thing for the Pac Ten and Big East. This way, there's already a de-facto playoff system built in. Take all the conference champions (there'd be six), and take the two highest ranked non-BCS schools (so the likes of Boise St. and Hawaii have a shot). Bingo, eight-team playoff system--you'd have seven games, so you just use all the existing BCS sites for the first round(Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange), then re-use two of the sites for the second round, and then play the championship game like they do now. It wouldn't change a thing, really, except determine the champion on the field instead of leaving it up to an objective guess. Who's to say Auburn wasn't as good as Oklahoma or USC that year? We don't know that because they didn't determine it on the field.

Seriously, who's going to sit there and say "I don't know, do I really want to watch more football?" No one would say that--it'd be extremely lucrative and makes perfect sense.

Honestly, I can't answer your baseball question. Frankly, the sport bores the shit out of me. I'm in no way saying a 3 game series would be a flawless determination, but it would be a damn sight better than a one off matchup that's subject to all kinds of noise ..... "bad" calls, inclement weather, low elevation, high elevation, (insert more sports rants here).

Thing is, an 8 team playoff won't solve any of this shit. What about teams #9 and #10? Why isn't there a 16 team playoff? Wait a minute, the Big 12's #2 team is better than the PAC 10's #1. This playoff system is skewed towards the PAC 10!

People will gripe and moan no matter what the system is. People don't complain about the NCAA tourney much, because, well, practically every team in the nation goes to it. 66 my last count. Pretty tough to argue that your team has a shot at #1 when the subjective consensus is that your team is, at best, #67. See that? Even in a tournament, you have subjective influence! People's opinions feed into the system! Let's face it, with as many teams as you have in the NCAA, there is no way you can obtain an objective champion, unless you made a season like 5 years long. The rankings are subjective, yes. But they have tons of writers and coaches voting. Oddly enough, the coaches and writer's polls are remarkably consistent, especially at the top where it counts. Are there biases? Yes. But the biases are offset and diluted by one another, producing a damn fine system.

Do I want more games? Sure I do! However, I'm old school. I like the bowls, I like the themes. I hate there is now a "Bowl Championship Game." You'll never see another champion crowned at the Sugar Bowl, which is a bummer.

ADDED: After rereading your post, you said something that a lot of people say, but isn't necessarily true:

"However, when it comes to winning championships, it's not about who the best team was all year--it's about rising to the challenge and winning games when it matters the most."

Now, I point you to Merriam-Webster:



Main Entry:
1cham·pi·on Listen to the pronunciation of 1champion
Pronunciation:
\ˈcham-pē-ən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin campion-, campio, of West Germanic origin; akin to Old English cempa warrior
Date:
13th century

1: warrior, fighter
2: a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3: one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4: a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <a champion at selling>

No where does that indicate that the first place recipient has to "rise to the occasion" at some arbitrarily sanctioned contest. If anything, I'd say it's talking about the competitor who is consistently the best (hence the word, marked). I know, to some, the team that "rises to the occasion" is the champion, which is cool by me. However, making this the law of what makes a champion is awkward, because the word itself never refers to this quality. I don't like it, because, well, I don't really think "rising to the occasion" is what makes a champion.

[The Dream Master]

Thing is, an 8 team playoff won't solve any of this shit. What about teams #9 and #10? Why isn't there a 16 team playoff? Wait a minute, the Big 12's #2 team is better than the PAC 10's #1. This playoff system is skewed towards the PAC 10!

I could make the same argument with any sport. Again, take baseball for an example: two years ago the Cardinals only had three more victories than my favorite team (the Braves), but, because they played in a weak central division, they made the playoffs while the Braves sat at home. Same thing in the NFL--there are some AFC teams that will be sitting at home this January, while inferior NFC teams play. You rarely see anyone complain about this, so I don't see why it'd be a problem with college football.

It'd be a whole lot better than the system we have now, which basically says "well, this team plays in , which means they must be better than a team in another confrence--let's rank them higher." Getting rid of that kind of nonsense is paramount. Everyone would have to do the same thing: win their conference. If you don't do this, you don't get a shot.

Also, here's another thing: this is how things work now, really. It doesn't matter how damn good people might think LSU might be--if they lose in the SEC championship game, they won't play for the title (at least they shouldn't--we all know what happened to Oklahoma a few years back :side:). Then look at something like the PAC 10 or Big 10, conferences that don't have to play a championship game--they have an easier path. Therefore, the system that's in place now is much more uneven than an 8 team playoff.

Now, to answer your question: why an 8 team playoff instead of 16? Two reasons: that'd be far too many games. A few extra games is reasonable, but to add any more than that would require way too much time--you'd either have to take up the entire month of December or January, and the college presidents aren't going to do that.

And here's an even better reason: if you allow any at-large bids (as you would have to do with a 16-team playoff), you leave yourself wide open to the same kind of shit that goes on now. Say team number 16 or 17 are virtually identical--how do you decide how goes and who stays? If you just leave it at conference championships, you don't have this problem. It's all played out on the field.

ADDED: After rereading your post, you said something that a lot of people say, but isn't necessarily true:

"However, when it comes to winning championships, it's not about who the best team was all year--it's about rising to the challenge and winning games when it matters the most."

Now, I point you to Merriam-Webster:



Main Entry:
1cham·pi·on Listen to the pronunciation of 1champion
Pronunciation:
\ˈcham-pē-ən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin campion-, campio, of West Germanic origin; akin to Old English cempa warrior
Date:
13th century

1: warrior, fighter
2: a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3: one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4: a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <a champion at selling>

No where does that indicate that the first place recipient has to "rise to the occasion" at some arbitrarily sanctioned contest. If anything, I'd say it's talking about the competitor who is [I]consistently the best (hence the word, marked). I know, to some, the team that "rises to the occasion" is the champion, which is cool by me. However, making this the law of what makes a champion is awkward, because the word itself never refers to this quality. I don't like it, because, well, I don't really think "rising to the occasion" is what makes a champion.

It says there "a winner of first prize or first place," which inherently means you have to play well when it counts the most because that's how sports determine champions: through playoffs. Otherwise, we'd just call it a day in baseball after 162 games and take the team (or teams) with the most wins and call them champions. That's not how it works though--you have to be clutch, rise to the occasion, and win on the sport's biggest stage.

A good example of this is Ohio State's team last year: by all accounts, they looked and played like champs for most of the year. However, they didn't play well when it mattered the most. That's why they aren't champions. Furthermore, I wouldn't say that the Cardinals displayed a "marked superiority" two years ago--they just got hot at the right time, and baseball, by the game's very nature allows that to happen. That's just how things are.

[Harmonic Bond]

It says there "a winner of first prize or first place," which inherently means you have to play well when it counts the most because that's how sports determine champions: through playoffs.

It doesn't inherently mean that! It doesn't imply that anywhere, nor are all sports decided by a playoff. Hell, you and I are talking about a sport that doesn't use a playoff. Not all champions are decided through playoffs: FACT. Are many (most) decided by playoffs? Yes, but not all. Playoffs are simply a part of the rules of the particular sport they are used in. If a sport decides to use them to define their champion, then so be it. There is nothing divine in the playoff system, and I've yet to see a shred of evidence that proves that a playoff system produces better results. Anyways, at the end of the day, it's still subjective. The polls are subjective, thus any objectivity that a playoff may present, is completely invalidated.

I think your real gripe about college football (and mine too), is that there isn't a great cross sampling of teams across the nation. For some reason, people think a playoff will remedy this. Ohio State waltzed into the championship game last year with a couple of great games (Texas and Michigan) underneath their belt at opposite ends of the season, and a bunch of softies in between (I hesitantly include Penn State in the group of softies). I'll admit, I thought they were great like everyone else (and, they were pretty damn good). Hell, when Northwestern, Northern Illinois, Cincy, Bowling Green, etc.. come to town, it's hard to trip up too much. I sincerely doubt Ohio State had any trouble "rising to the occasion" for the national championship game. If they have motivational problems that deep, they wouldn't have gotten past Bowling Green. The truth is ..... Florida, was just a much better football team. Looking back on that season, watching Florida play, it was so obvious. But, you know, hindsight ........

My remedy? First of all, I think the regular season should be about 15 or 16 games. No Div. 1 vs. 1A or 2 games. And, lastly, the conferences need to draw up contracts with each other where every team, in every conference, plays at least 3 other teams in comparable conferences every year. The matchups will revolve (i.e. Vandy and Syracuse don't square off every year just because the both suck). I think that that would give the appropriate amount of cross sampling to find a #1 and #2 every season. Get rid of the crappy "BCS Championship Game" and the championship is played at the #1 teams sponsoring bowl.

[The Dream Master]

What major sport doesn't determine its champion through a playoff system (besides College Football)?

And yes, to win a championship in a sport that utilizes a playoff system, it does inherently mean that the champion played the better game when it mattered most. How can it not mean that? If team A beats team B in the biggest game of the year (even if team B was considered "the best" team all year), can you honestly say that team A didn't play best when it meant the most? So, of course champions play best when it matters the most. You might still want to argue that team A might not be a better team than team B, but they're champions because they played better when it mattered the most.

And yeah, NCAA football really needs to prevent teams from scheduling so many weak opponents on their schedule. I think you should get to schedule one for homecoming and that's it. This still doesn't mean that we'd get a great idea of how teams stack up, but it'd be a lot better than what we have now.

[Harmonic Bond]

What major sport doesn't determine its champion through a playoff system (besides College Football)?

Why, only the biggest sport in the US, NASCAR.

And yes, to win a championship in a sport that utilizes a playoff system, it does inherently mean that the champion played the better game when it mattered most. How can it not mean that?

Here I agree with you, if a playoff is a part of the rules, then the sport defines the champion as the team that "rose to the occasion". Just because many sports use it, doesn't mean it's right for college football, nor does it redefine the word "champion", since all sports don't use it. I've stated my reasons why I don't think it's appropriate in this sport, so I'll spare you.

If team A beats team B in the biggest game of the year (even if team B was considered "the best" team all year), can you honestly say that team A didn't play best when it meant the most? So, of course champions play best when it matters the most. You might still want to argue that team A might not be a better team than team B, but they're champions because they played better when it mattered the most.


This is where you and I start to really diverge. I don't understand this big game/little game business. A game is a game, if the rules of the sport don't define it otherwise (such as in playoff sports), all games are equal. No? Should comparatively "small" games be deemphasized. After last night, I'll bet Oregon hopes you say "yes." ;) Concerning college football, there are so many teams, so many stressors, that a playoff simply doesn't provide enough sampling.

I think you have less faith in statistics than I do. If you take team 1 in conference A. Make them play 16 games (1 patsy for homecoming), 8 conference games, and 7 sanctioned non-conference games, and all of the other teams in their conference do the same thing (with exclusive teams), that's a TON of sampling. I know people hate the computers (I thought it was a smart move, frankly), but the analysis would require them. I think that's about as accurate as the picking will get without an ungodly number of games.

[The Dream Master]

Um, last time I checked, Nascar wasn't the biggest sport in America (the NFL is far and away the most popular sport in America), and it does, in fact use a playoff system: that's what the Chase for the Cup is all about.

And also, I never said that a college football champion necessarily only wins when it's big--I was talking about pretty much every other sport, but I don't think that's what we really want to talk about here.

I agree that College Football values every single game moreso than every other sport, and I see alot of people latch onto this when they defend the current system. However, if you adopted a playoff system, it really wouldn't change this much because it's not like you're going to have a ton of 2 and 3 loss teams win their conferences. Anytime you play a game in-conference would still be huge because it's very easy to lose your conference or division by one game. I should know this--I've watched Clemson do this for the past two years. A play here and a play there to win just one more conference game would have changed everything.

Okay, last point here: even if you still play all of those games to get a better "sampling," you could still end up with the same problem we have now: multiple teams that could stake a legit claim to playing for a national title. What if three teams from major conferences go undefeated in that system? What if you have five very good one-loss teams? You're back at square one. With a playoff system, no one could complain, as everyone would know what they have to do from the start of the season: win your conference, and then match up against the winners of the other conferences to determine the champion on the field.

[Harmonic Bond]

Well, in terms of popularity, I think it depends on how you categorize it. You're right, the NFL grosses more money than NASCAR. In general, more people are interested in the NFL. However, NASCAR nets more than anything else. When it's not so late, I'll look up that statistic. I'm not incredibly familiar with NASCAR, but calling their system a playoff is, at best, a monumental stretch. They are on a point system. First place gives X points, 2nd gives Y, etc., etc.. Competitors are eliminated, but usually in a qualifying round, not in a systematic fashion as seen in a playoff. Same thing with golf, except their scoring system is more intuitive. To be completely honest, bringing NASCAR and golf into the equation was kind of a bastardy thing for me to do. You can't really have playoffs in these sports, since they aren't one team against another team, they are group competitions. Playoffs are completely incompatible with that type of competition. However, you did ask "what major sports don't use the playoff system?" So I indulged.

Okay, last point here: even if you still play all of those games to get a better "sampling," you could still end up with the same problem we have now: multiple teams that could stake a legit claim to playing for a national title. What if three teams from major conferences go undefeated in that system? What if you have five very good one-loss teams? You're back at square one. With a playoff system, no one could complain, as everyone would know what they have to do from the start of the season: win your conference, and then match up against the winners of the other conferences to determine the champion on the field.

I don't think I've explained myself clearly. This idea of "sampling" I'm talking about is the crux of the system. It doesn't matter if you have five "good" one loss teams (or 5 undefeated teams). With all of these teams playing one another, you can quantify, based on a variety of things, which team is likely the best. It's no longer an issue of "well, team A and B both have only one loss, which is better?????" With so much cross sampling, you can make a quantitative connection between one loss teams A,B,C,D,E,etc.., etc. It's kind of like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, but for football. We do this exact thing for much, much, much more complicated systems (such as the stock market).

I understand your playoff argument, it's good, because it's simple. Fans will get it, and it will generally satisfy people. If you implement computers, people get frustrated because they can't follow things as easily. However, I don't believe that the playoff system preserves the definition of what a "champion" in college football is. I've followed college football since I was 9 years old (1990). I've read books about the enduring, champion programs over the years (USC, Penn State, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc). Those teams aren't (in some cases, weren't) champions because Oklahoma tripped up in the Cotton Bowl. They are champions because at those places, among many others, they bred success. They consistently dominated. If you look not all that long ago in the history of college football, you'll find teams that won the "national championship" (which was a loose term in those days, there wasn't an official title) that actually lost their final game. The writers got together, and decided that despite the final loss, this team is the best in the country. There is a precedent for this type "champion" in college football. There is no precedent for the "rising to the occasion" champion in college football, at least officially. As far as I'm concerned, change the rules if you like. But it will be a different game, a game I personally probably won't care for.

[The Dream Master]

The Chase for the Cup essentially eliminates everyone from title contention except for the top 12 drivers after a certain amount of races. Those 12 then have their point totals reset, and it comes down to the last 10 races. To me, that's a playoff system because it's putting a higher value on those last 10 races. It's not exactly like other playoff systems, but it is a playoff.

Anyway, my argument basically is that college football should define its champion in a manner similar to other sports. It's horseshit to think that a team can lose its last game of the season and still be considered a champion if another team can make a legit claim. All this talk of having to determine who the best team is off the field is exactly what needs to be avoided. You should never, ever have to have that conversation with sports, tradition be damned. I can think of plenty of traditions that were considered right at one point, but we know better now. College football essentially determines its champion by a huge popularity contest unless it gets lucky and ends up with two undefeated teams at the end of the year. However, that doesn't happen very often, and it sure as hell isn't happening this year.

I don't buy the notion of a team being a champion because of past success, either. If that were the case, I could say I go to a championship-caliber school because Clemson absolutely dominated in the '80s. However, we haven't won shit since 1991, and we can't be considered ACC Champions unless we got out on the field and prove that we deserve the title by beating Boston College and Virginia/VT.

I don't see how a playoff system would drastically change anything at all. It'd improve the game significantly as far as I'm concerned. If anything, traditionalists should be absolutely pissed about how many bowls there are. It should actually mean something to go to a bowl, but pretty much everyone gets to now if you have six wins.

[Fowlees]

Buckeyes vs Wolverines in Anne Arbor today then.......Ouch!!......could be a bit tasty.

[Special Killa B]

Another W over the Mighty Wolverines!!!!

I'm smelling ROSES!!!

[Harmonic Bond]

The Chase for the Cup essentially eliminates everyone from title contention except for the top 12 drivers after a certain amount of races. Those 12 then have their point totals reset, and it comes down to the last 10 races. To me, that's a playoff system because it's putting a higher value on those last 10 races. It's not exactly like other playoff systems, but it is a playoff.

Anyway, my argument basically is that college football should define its champion in a manner similar to other sports. It's horseshit to think that a team can lose its last game of the season and still be considered a champion if another team can make a legit claim. All this talk of having to determine who the best team is off the field is exactly what needs to be avoided. You should never, ever have to have that conversation with sports, tradition be damned. I can think of plenty of traditions that were considered right at one point, but we know better now. College football essentially determines its champion by a huge popularity contest unless it gets lucky and ends up with two undefeated teams at the end of the year. However, that doesn't happen very often, and it sure as hell isn't happening this year.

I don't buy the notion of a team being a champion because of past success, either. If that were the case, I could say I go to a championship-caliber school because Clemson absolutely dominated in the '80s. However, we haven't won shit since 1991, and we can't be considered ACC Champions unless we got out on the field and prove that we deserve the title by beating Boston College and Virginia/VT.

I don't see how a playoff system would drastically change anything at all. It'd improve the game significantly as far as I'm concerned. If anything, traditionalists should be absolutely pissed about how many bowls there are. It should actually mean something to go to a bowl, but pretty much everyone gets to now if you have six wins.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree about NASCAR being a "playoff." If you get super loose with the term, you could even define college football as a "playoff." Essentially, the lesser teams are decanted via conference championships, and the winner of those conferences square off against one another. Not too long ago, you didn't even have to go to the "championship game" to win a share of the title (see: LSU and USC in 2002). Win out, and you are judged by voters. I've dug a little more on the topic, and college gymnastics is polled in almost the same exact way as college football is. They use a so called "Code of Points." It's an attempt to quantify the subjective execution of maneuvers. Again, the champion is crowned upon the opinion of the judges. I suppose you may argue gymnastics isn't "a major sport." In that case, I'd say you haven't been to the right campus. At Auburn (along with obviously football and swimming), it was big. This was probably a reaction to the rivalry between Alabama, where gymnastics is HUGE.

I'm in no way saying that historic tradition should factor in when crowning a champion in a given year. I HATE preseason polls, I think they give an unfair edge to bigger/more well known schools. I don't think a poll should be out until about week 5. However, I do think the champion should be based on the team that performed the best over the entire season, not at an arbitrarily sanctioned game. This is just my opinion, as yours is the the champion should be the one that "rises to the occasion" in a single game. These are both different flavors of the word "champion" which aren't really corroborated by the official definition of "champion." However, I'm still empty handed as to why a playoff system is better. I get the same response from everyone who champions it. "It will give a definitive champion!" Well, is that champion the best team in the nation? Only if you define the champion that way, which I find inherently flawed. Not stating it as a fact or anything, but it just doesn't jive with my personal definition of "champion," nor the definition of "champion" set in college football through precedent. Again, I think this is a place where will have to agree to disagree. We're starting to recycle points of our argument, which are largely based on opinion anyways. :p

As far as all of the extra bowls goes ..... who cares? They don't change anything, it's more football with lesser known teams that I wouldn't normally get to see. We also get some answers as to which "is conference A better than conference B?". I think they're kinda fun.

Getting away from the semantics debate, I was pretty bummed about the events that transpired over the long weekend. I felt (and still do) that Oklahoma and Oregon were the 3rd and 2nd best teams in the nation. Bummer they lost their QBs, but losing because you lost one player (key as they may be) is no excuse. I really have no idea about the championship game. Maybe West Virginia? What little I've seen of Mizzou has been impressive, we'll see how the game next week pans out. Admittedly, my interest in the season has taken a nosedive, there won't be a Texas vs. USC this year, sadly. I get the feeling the championship game will be lopsided. The game I'm really interested in: Vandy vs. Wake. I've been in grad school at Vandy for 5 season now, and we've come so close to bowl eligibility in many of those years. We got 5, need one more. Lost to the Vols (gag me) by 1 yesterday. If we win next week, and we get invited to a bowl, I'm going. No matter how shitty it is. It's been 25 years. I'll be dead before it ever happens again.

[The Dream Master]

So, does anyone think the BCS got it right this year? I'm not so sure. I mean, you have all the conference champs (excluding OSU of course) sitting there with two losses, so how can you really justify taking LSU over any of them? Obviously, VT is eliminated by virtue of the fact that LSU pasted them. However, that still leaves Oklahoma, WVU, and USC sitting there with two losses. How do we know LSU is better than these three? Because they play in "the toughest conference in America," the SEC?

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but this season proves that we need a playoff system to determine a real national champion. Hell, even a "Plus-One" system would work here.

And Harmonic Bond, I just now noticed that you're a grad student at Vandy, so I'd like to say good job to the Commodores for starting South Carolina's tail-spin this year. :lol:

[Special Killa B]

Boston College was one of my other choices but FSU stopped that yesterday. L.S.U. is looking strong at #2, As long as Ohio State can get past Michigan my pick is:

Ohio State vs LSU in the championship


I nailed my pick right on the nose!!

[The Dream Master]

But could ever have guessed it would have happened the way it did? :lol:

[Special Killa B]

LOL!! That is true!

[The Dream Master]

I'm not going to lie: I thought OSU would make it back to the title game easily because I knew there was no way that Kansas or Mizzou were going to get past Oklahoma. However, once LSU lost, I thought they were out for sure because I sure didn't see WVU losing to Pitt at home like they did.

[Fowlees]

I'd have to agree with you, but who do you think they will be playin against?

Its hard to call, but i'd say L.S.U. They look pretty strong.




I made the call a few weeks back. I can't believe i didn't put money on it.

It's been one crazy season.

I've got to back the Buckeyes . Loyalties lie with the Big 12 and the Big Ten.

[Harmonic Bond]

Well, I gotta say LSU looked awesome in the title game, much more gelled than the rest of the season. I expected them to be faster and stronger, but I thought their lack of discipline may be Ohio State's in. I was shocked Ohio State had so many personal fouls, and the rumors of a OSU halftime locker room meltdown is really inconsistent with the kind of ship I think Tressel runs.

Truth is, Ohio State is a very good team, maybe even great. I still think they belonged in the Rose Bowl, but, oh well. This will probably stir up some grumbles from my midwestern friends, but ..... the Big 10 needs a big shakeup. Ohio State is losing these games not because they don't have the talent or coaching prowess (Tressel is a much better coach than Miles), but because the lackluster Big 10 doesn't provide the big games that will build up to an emotional national championship. UM is fine and all, but there are 11 other throwaway games. The sooner Joe Pa gets out of Penn State, the better. PSU is primed to be great again, but Paterno has lost it. A resurgent Penn State would be good medicine for Ohio State.

Really, the Big 10 needs to do like the ACC, and mine that great Big East conference. This has helped the ACC a lot. Traditional teams like Clemson and Georgia Tech have become more competitive, and the additions have flourished as well. Va. Tech makes an appearance in the BCS almost every year and Boston College is very solid. Obviously, Miami has their good years too. Seriously Big 10, steal Louisville and Rutgers, ASAP. Don't worry about the Big East, their cultivate even more winners.

[Special Killa B]

Well, I gotta say LSU looked awesome in the title game, much more gelled than the rest of the season. I expected them to be faster and stronger, but I thought their lack of discipline may be Ohio State's in. I was shocked Ohio State had so many personal fouls, and the rumors of a OSU halftime locker room meltdown is really inconsistent with the kind of ship I think Tressel runs.

Truth is, Ohio State is a very good team, maybe even great. I still think they belonged in the Rose Bowl, but, oh well. This will probably stir up some grumbles from my midwestern friends, but ..... the Big 10 needs a big shakeup. Ohio State is losing these games not because they don't have the talent or coaching prowess (Tressel is a much better coach than Miles), but because the lackluster Big 10 doesn't provide the big games that will build up to an emotional national championship. UM is fine and all, but there are 11 other throwaway games. The sooner Joe Pa gets out of Penn State, the better. PSU is primed to be great again, but Paterno has lost it. A resurgent Penn State would be good medicine for Ohio State.

Really, the Big 10 needs to do like the ACC, and mine that great Big East conference. This has helped the ACC a lot. Traditional teams like Clemson and Georgia Tech have become more competitive, and the additions have flourished as well. Va. Tech makes an appearance in the BCS almost every year and Boston College is very solid. Obviously, Miami has their good years too. Seriously Big 10, steal Louisville and Rutgers, ASAP. Don't worry about the Big East, their cultivate even more winners.

I heard a rumor a few times this year about them adding Notre Dame to the Big Ten. If that rumor would become true then that would give you a push in the right direction for the division.

But really they need to change the divisions name, How can you call it the Big Ten when there's 11 teams and possibly 12 if ND were added!

[The Dream Master]

...traditional teams like Clemson and Georgia Tech have become more competitive...

Actually, without the addition of BC to the ACC, we (Clemson) would have been in the ACC Title game two years in a row. Those fuckers from Boston have ruined it for us both years. :(

[Uncle Hoody]

New Thread (http://www.f13-community.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=2690)