Bama vs. Utah

[LongLiveRalph]

With all the talk about how Boise St. or Cincinnatti have no business in a national title game even if they're undefeated...

 

Has the world completely forgotten that Alabama got rolled off the field and destroyed at the line of scrimmage by a non-BCS school last year?

 

That bowl game seems to have been swept under the rug...What a joke...

[Gordio]

With all the talk about how Boise St. or Cincinnatti have no business in a national title game even if they're undefeated...

 

Has the world completely forgotten that Alabama got rolled off the field and destroyed at the line of scrimmage by a non-BCS school last year?

 

That bowl game seems to have been swept under the rug...What a joke...

 

 

I do hear what you are saying & you make a valid point, however there was some circumstances in that game. First, players from Alabama had their heart set on playing for the NC. When that was gone, I do not think they had much enthusiam playing against Utah. Just watching the lack of effort on Alabama's part you could tell the players were treating that bg like the Humantarrian bowl instead of the Sugar Bowl. Also, they just suspended A Smith who was the anchor of that line. Lastly, Utah was dam good last year, definately a top 5 team & would of beat most teams in the country which I guess stregthens your point about giving the lesser known teams a chance.

 

In the end though, I really think part of the blame has to lie on the Ads & coaches of teams like Boise St for not scheduling better OOC games. I mean, besides oregon, the OOC this year was UC Davis, Miami(ohio), Bowling Green & Tulsa. I know it is tough & you would in all likelyhood give away home games some years but there has to be some BCS school that would be willing to give you a 2 for 1 deal. I mean in the end, if Boise St could something like BYU did & schedule to BCS games(Oklahoma/Fl St) & won them they would probably be in the national title talk right.

 

Cincy is a little different, they are in a BCS & did schedule Oregon St & Illinois, both on the road I believe. It is not their fault that Illinois sucks this year. Cincy is for real though & they would give Florida/Alabama/Texas all they could handle in a bowl game. So would TCU, Boise St I am not so sure about.

[LongLiveRalph]

I do hear what you are saying & you make a valid point, however there was some circumstances in that game. First, players from Alabama had their heart set on playing for the NC. When that was gone, I do not think they had much enthusiam playing against Utah. Just watching the lack of effort on Alabama's part you could tell the players were treating that bg like the Humantarrian bowl instead of the Sugar Bowl. Also, they just suspended A Smith who was the anchor of that line. Lastly, Utah was dam good last year, definately a top 5 team & would of beat most teams in the country which I guess stregthens your point about giving the lesser known teams a chance.

 

In the end though, I really think part of the blame has to lie on the Ads & coaches of teams like Boise St for not scheduling better OOC games. I mean, besides oregon, the OOC this year was UC Davis, Miami(ohio), Bowling Green & Tulsa. I know it is tough & you would in all likelyhood give away home games some years but there has to be some BCS school that would be willing to give you a 2 for 1 deal. I mean in the end, if Boise St could something like BYU did & schedule to BCS games(Oklahoma/Fl St) & won them they would probably be in the national title talk right.

 

Cincy is a little different, they are in a BCS & did schedule Oregon St & Illinois, both on the road I believe. It is not their fault that Illinois sucks this year. Cincy is for real though & they would give Florida/Alabama/Texas all they could handle in a bowl game. So would TCU, Boise St I am not so sure about.

 

I don't really buy the "We had our hearts set on the national title." Good for you Alabama, unfortunately so did Florida. Beat the Gators and you would've been there. There's no excuse for them to lay down in any game. I think the fact that college football teams are off for 40 days before they play these bowl games is a more legit factor for a poor performance, but the delay is the same for both teams. If the reason for losing is, "We didn't really care about the Sugar Bowl" then in my opinion, that's not championship-caliber attitude or coaching in the first place.

 

I definitley hear you about the OOC scheduling. But if Oregon finishes 11-1 and is in the top-5 at the end of the season, the NCAA would look disgraceful leaving Boise out of it. But it wouldn't be unheard of. Same thing for leaving an undefeated Cincinnati out...Call the Big East what you will, IT'S STILL A BCS CONFERENCE!!! (Only yelling because many analysts seem to forget this when they lump Cincy in with the "mid-majors.")

 

Also, with regard to scheduling, let's face it...An undefeated Penn State would play for the national title...They were ranked as high as #4 when they were 3-0. Their non-conference games are Akron, Syracuse, Temple, and Eastern Illinois. Is the Big Ten REALLY that good, that simply beating Iowa and Ohio State (both at home) plus a bunch of dogs would've gotten them a shot at the title, over a team like Cincinnatti?

 

But what can ya do? Just hope for as many undefeateds as possible I suppose, to further highlight the ridiculousness of the system.

[el Tigre]

With all the talk about how Boise St. or Cincinnatti have no business in a national title game even if they're undefeated...

 

Has the world completely forgotten that Alabama got rolled off the field and destroyed at the line of scrimmage by a non-BCS school last year?

 

That bowl game seems to have been swept under the rug...What a joke...

With over 100 1-A schools,a 12 game season,and scheduling/time restrictions due to testing,etc.,there is never going to be a perfect system for determing a national champ. I just enjoy college football for what it is,an imperfect game that has unmatched drama from the start of the season to the finish. Much more interesting than the NFL. The debate you're bringing up just adds to that drama.

[LongLiveRalph]

With over 100 1-A schools,a 12 game season,and scheduling/time restrictions due to testing,etc.,there is never going to be a perfect system for determing a national champ. I just enjoy college football for what it is,an imperfect game that has unmatched drama from the start of the season to the finish. Much more interesting than the NFL. The debate you're bringing up just adds to that drama.

 

Agreed and agreed. I think as long as the NCAA keeps raking in the money, they enjoy the conversation, debate, and argument. And let's face it, there's not a sports talk host in the world who doesn't LOVE the current system, because it gives them and their listeners something to get all worked up about.

 

You definitely have to give props to the BCS for a few games...Namely, OSU-Miami '01, Texas-Michigan '04, Texas-USC '05, Boise St-Oklahoma '06...Those were all-time classic games that never would've happened under the old system.

 

However...When you're halfway thru the season in mid-October, and people are already stating the 4-5 teams who have a REAL shot at playing for the National Championship, completely leaving out undefeateds like Cincy and Boise and TCU, while also stating that a 1-loss Florida or USC would STILL get a bid over those teams, really makes it a joke. They've always stood behind their "mid-major" argument that teams like Utah or Boise don't have the week-to-week grind that the big boys have...Yet it appears that justification extends to even BCS conferences, as the Big East champ apparently doesn't warrant consideration either. They basically argue in circles around the system they created.

 

The perceived "lesser" programs have proven that they can hang. And they've done it pretty consistently, not only playing good ball, but actually winning games. In fact, the only mid-major to ever lose a BCS game was Hawaii, who got manhandled by UGA. The Big East has an excellent BCS bowl record. And in Utah's case last season, they DOMINATED the team that was #1 in the country for pretty much the entire fall. Those things seem to be forgotten as once again, Alabama wins their 12-9 conference games and stays at the top of the heap.

 

I'm not claiming that Boise State could win 11 games playing in the SEC, but maybe they could. We know for sure that they could beat Florida or Alabama or Iowa or Oregon (they did) on any given day. Which is the nature of football- playing once that week and being at your best, no excuses...Which is why a three week playoff would be incredible...

[Cynical]

Agreed and agreed. I think as long as the NCAA keeps raking in the money, they enjoy the conversation, debate, and argument. And let's face it, there's not a sports talk host in the world who doesn't LOVE the current system, because it gives them and their listeners something to get all worked up about.

 

You definitely have to give props to the BCS for a few games...Namely, OSU-Miami '01, Texas-Michigan '04, Texas-USC '05, Boise St-Oklahoma '06...Those were all-time classic games that never would've happened under the old system.

 

However...When you're halfway thru the season in mid-October, and people are already stating the 4-5 teams who have a REAL shot at playing for the National Championship, completely leaving out undefeateds like Cincy and Boise and TCU, while also stating that a 1-loss Florida or USC would STILL get a bid over those teams, really makes it a joke. They've always stood behind their "mid-major" argument that teams like Utah or Boise don't have the week-to-week grind that the big boys have...Yet it appears that justification extends to even BCS conferences, as the Big East champ apparently doesn't warrant consideration either. They basically argue in circles around the system they created.

 

The perceived "lesser" programs have proven that they can hang. And they've done it pretty consistently, not only playing good ball, but actually winning games. In fact, the only mid-major to ever lose a BCS game was Hawaii, who got manhandled by UGA. The Big East has an excellent BCS bowl record. And in Utah's case last season, they DOMINATED the team that was #1 in the country for pretty much the entire fall. Those things seem to be forgotten as once again, Alabama wins their 12-9 conference games and stays at the top of the heap.

 

I'm not claiming that Boise State could win 11 games playing in the SEC, but maybe they could. We know for sure that they could beat Florida or Alabama or Iowa or Oregon (they did) on any given day. Which is the nature of football- playing once that week and being at your best, no excuses...Which is why a three week playoff would be incredible...

 

And such a format would create it's own set of problems, subject to debate, criticism, and cries of programs being screwed.

Essentially, you would be trading one flawed system for another flawed system.

But hey, as long as you're happy ...

[LongLiveRalph]

And such a format would create it's own set of problems, subject to debate, criticism, and cries of programs being screwed.

Essentially, you would be trading one flawed system for another flawed system.

But hey, as long as you're happy ...

 

No question...I'm not sure of the "correct" way to determine the playoff teams, or if there is a "correct" way...As was mentioned above, there's 100+ teams with a 12 game season. But if you've got a leaky faucet, wouldn't you attempt a solution that could at least slow the leak? You don't just shrug your shoulders and say "What's the difference, it's still going to be broken anyways" and then cover your eyes and forget about it.

 

I'll be happy when we aren't automatically casting aside undefeated teams on October 8th because of the perception of their remaining schedule compared to the perception of another team's schedule. Is it unreasonable to say that Cincinnatti would be undefeated right now with Florida's schedule? Or Penn State's? How would we ever know?

 

At least the other flawed system (figure 8 team playoff) would increase championship eligibility by 300% which would answer the majority of the questions on the field. I also think a trickle-down benefit would be better regular season scheduling. Teams would see the value of a big non-conference win, while coupled with less risk of a loss ruining your title hopes in week 2.

 

I think we can all agree that gripes about being #9 hold less water than gripes about being left out of the top 2, or never really being considered in the first place.

[Cynical]

No question...I'm not sure of the "correct" way to determine the playoff teams, or if there is a "correct" way...As was mentioned above, there's 100+ teams with a 12 game season.

I'll be happy when we aren't automatically casting aside undefeated teams on October 8th because of the perception of their remaining schedule compared to the perception of another team's schedule. Is it unreasonable to say that Cincinnatti would be undefeated right now with Florida's schedule? Or Penn State's? How would we ever know?

 

That kind of talk would continue regardless. Whether it's about undefeated teams or 1 loss teams.

 

At least the other flawed system (figure 8 team playoff) would increase championship eligibility by 300% which would answer the majority of the questions on the field. I also think a trickle-down benefit would be better regular season scheduling. Teams would see the value of a big non-conference win, while coupled with less risk of a loss ruining your title hopes in week 2.

 

The second sentence says it all. That would wipe out "better" regular season scheduling.

Higher profile teams would seek out even "weaker" competition in attempt to "preserve" their record. In short, OOC games would become even a bigger joke than they are now.

 

I think we can all agree that gripes about being #9 hold less water than gripes about being left out of the top 2, or never really being considered in the first place.

 

I do not agree at all. #9 has no chance to win, yet who's to say they couldn't have beaten team 'x'?

 

Got 9 undefeated teams? One of them is left out.

5 undefeated teams, and 10 one loss teams? 7 one loss teams will be left out.

Who decides which 3 makes it?

What's the criteria?

 

What about those conferences that have championship games? There is the potential those conferences would be 'punished' as 2 undefeated teams would play, thus potentially eliminating one of them from entering the playoff. It would make more sense for the conference to send 2 undefeated teams to the playoffs instead of one.

[el Tigre]

Teams would see the value of a big non-conference win, while coupled with less risk of a loss ruining your title hopes in week 2.

IMO the threat of losing your shot at a title in week 2 is one of the things that makes college football so great. Every game is a essentially playoff. I know it's not always fair,but it makes every week exciting as hell.There's no other sport like it.

[Cynical]

IMO the threat of losing your shot at a title in week 2 is one of the things that makes college football so great. Every game is a essentially playoff. I know it's not always fair,but it makes every week exciting as hell.There's no other sport like it.

 

Actually, from what we have already seen in past seasons, a week 2 loss may not be as devastating as once thought. How many times have we seen a team lose early in the year, only to be in the hunt near the end of season. Losses later in the season seem to have a bigger negative impact.