NCAA Football 2008 Discussion - It All Starts Here.

[Plomeek Broth]

SEC fans make fun of the ACC Championship attendance, but I think it will be respectable once it moves to Charlotte.

 

[Neroon]

SEC fans make fun of the ACC Championship attendance, but I think it will be respectable once it moves to Charlotte.

Why would that be the case? Not that I doubt you, especially since I don't live in ACC or SEC country - or rather haven't for a long time.

 

[DaleC76]

Charlotte is closer to more ACC schools than Tampa, but the ACC doesn't travel that well. They may be better off holding their title game at the stadium on the highest seeded team.

 

[DanCPA]

I know that the top rated team will be the winner of oklahoma/florida
But I do think that both texas and sc have legit claims (and possibly in the polls that are not mandated by the bcs) to being called the "best in the nation"

The only one of consequence that isn't associated with the BCS is the Associated Press, isn't it? They currently have Florida #1. and Oklahoma #2. If Florida wins, even by 1 point, they're the AP champs. If Oklahoma wins in a struggle, and Alabama wins... the AP takes Oklahoma because they beat the team that smacked Alabama in the end. USC is too far back in the polls and playing a lower ranked team, so I can't see the AP taking them. The only team they might elevate to #1 other than those would be Texas, and frankly with the way the AP seems to regard Ohio St (with some justification, I might add), that ought to mitigate even a complete domination by Texas. Would Texas have a legitimate claim? I doubt it. As important as I feel head-to-head is, when all is said and done Oklahoma will have turned in the more impressive performance. Enough so to overcome any edge head-to-head would provide.

I think that if OU and Florida play a VERY close game, and SC just destroys Penn State, they might get some 1st place votes

 

[Kronos]

SEC fans make fun of the ACC Championship attendance, but I think it will be respectable once it moves to Charlotte.

The ACC's handling of their championship game has been ridiculous, funny how the divisions, and the championship game was set up just for a Miami/FSU match up every year and it has yet to take place

 

[JM1776]

I think if Ohio State defeats Texas, Florida takes out OU in a sloppily-played game, and Alabama loses big, I'd have to give serious thought to ranking Utah number one.

Pretty unlikely all that will come together, though.

 

[Neroon]

I thought you were opposed to a play off?

 

[JM1776]

How could I possibly offer my unsolicited opinion were there a playoff?

Frankly, a playoff wouldn't solve everything, either: If some team went 13-1, losing only in the championship finals to a 10-4 squad, I'd still be inclined to crown the former national champs if the schedules were relatively even. Again, body of work should trump a good run in college sports.

 

[Neroon]

Sure it's a playoff. Elevating Utah to #1 can only be achieved if you ignore what Florida or Oklahoma would have achieved throughout the entire season, their "body of work". The only thing Utah would have going for it is an undefeated record, which itself was achieved via an inferior schedule. You can only go through an entire playoff if you win every game.

 

[DanCPA]

I'd have to give serious thought to ranking Utah number one.

over the winner of USC/Penn State?

 

[DaleC76]

Mississippi State has just hired Florida OC Dan Mullen as its new head coach. He certainly has his work cut out for him.

 

[Kronos]

Mississippi State has just hired Florida OC Dan Mullen as its new head coach. He certainly has his work cut out for him.

The only way to win at Mississippi State is to cheat.

Mullen would have been wise to wait for a better job.

 

[Kolrad]

Argh; I have to say I'm hacked at the Heisman committee for not inviting Graham Harrell to New York along with the other candidates. If it had been a matter of needing to leave someone out, I could understand it, but in previous years they've invited as many as five candidates, and it's not like there are a lot of other players out there being given serious consideration that would require them to leave someone out.

All three of the Big 12 South winning quarterbacks had seasons deserving of being invited to the ceremony; there's very little to distinguish between their performances. (I accepted the "blown out by OU" factor as killing Tech's chances for winning the three-way tiebreaker, but it makes no sense to disqualify Harrell for that-- he didn't give up 65 points!)

I was looking forward to seeing ESPN interview Harrell, and giving a national audience more of a chance to see what a great season he had-- including leading a comeback the final week against Baylor with a shattered hand. (I bet a lot of the voters just looked at the close margin of the final score and didn't even know about that.)

It just makes me mad, because there was no reason to leave any of the three QBs out. I know that no one seems to know what the Heisman means any more, but can we at least try to make it look like it's a possibility for more than ten schools to have Heisman winners?

 

[JM1776]

Elevating Utah to #1 can only be achieved if you ignore what Florida or Oklahoma would have achieved throughout the entire season, their "body of work". The only thing Utah would have going for it is an undefeated record, which itself was achieved via an inferior schedule.

Not so.

Utah will have certainly proven itself worthy of at least consideration with a more impressive win over Alabama than Florida achieved—assuming the Gators go out and stumble around in a sloppy, close, turnover- and penalty-marred win over Oklahoma.

Whether or not you rate "body of work" for a one-loss team over that of an undefeated one that played and handled a number of solid programs (including, conservatively, bowl-bound Colorado State, Top 40 Air Force, Top 25 BYU and Oregon State, Top 15 Texas Christian, and, of course, Top Ten, 12-2 Alabama, assuming the Utes win) should depend in some measure on the quality of said loss. The Sooners are in no danger of Utah overtaking them in my poll if the former wins, because their loss was to Texas at a site that slightly favors the Longhorns.

UF, however, has a much bigger problem.

Frankly, Florida's loss to Mississippi at home will be even more an eyesore if Texas Tech makes the Rebels a five-loss squad. That, coupled with a huge win for the Utes over 'Bama, a lusterless performance from the Gators in the "championship" game, and the mystique I justly afford any team that plays a good schedule and goes undefeated, could be barely enough to sway me. I'm not saying it's going to happen, because I'm not convinced Utah will beat Alabama, let alone impressively. I am saying that they have a case if they do and this BCS title game is a big letdown.

This is not a case like Hawaii, Neroon, which would have had but two-quality wins if they'd managed to defeat Georgia in last year's Sugar Bowl. Utah is for real, and deserves real regard if they stem the Tide.

 

[JM1776]

I'd have to give serious thought to ranking Utah number one.

over the winner of USC/Penn State?

Without much thought over USC. The Utes defeated Oregon State, which handed the Trojans their only loss.

Penn State's loss to Iowa, coupled with the fact that they'd really have only two marquee wins, Ohio State and USC (neutralized by Utah's over TCU and 'Bama), would probably be enough to sway me in the Utes' favor. [Some of this would also depend on TCU holding serve against Boise.]

Undefeated means a lot in my book ... but so much would have to break Utah's way for this to even become a possibility it's almost certainly moot. I'm just amusing myself ... and, hopefully, the gallery.

 

[Neroon]

Even if that undefeated record was against such a weak schedule? Sorry, but I can't see that being even remotely realistic. I agree Oklahoma has a more solid case if they win. However, if Florida wins, no matter how closely, that will be two wins over teams in the top three at the time of the game, of every poll available. The loss at home to Miss. is problematic, but it's one of those "solid programs" that has become less and less of a problem as the season wore on. Almost every other Florida win was against a much tougher schedule than Utah played and more impressive than almost any win Utah had, save for possibly the Fresno St. game. Wins against teams like Michigan - even with that name and rep - cheapened the Utes' schedule strength with each Wolverine loss. There are some decent wins on that that schedule, but how do they compare with the total destruction of teams like LSU, Georgia and Florida St, which was the equal at least of anyone on Utah's schedule? Moreover, even if Utah does beat Alabama... Florida has beaten them already AND when the Tide was pretty much a consensus #1.

Don't misunderstand. I am always for programs with lesser light havign the spot focused upon them for a change. Undefeated in this day and age is a great achievement, but it needs to be kept in perspective. The championship game is the right matchup, the least arguable of all the BCS bowls. The only way Utah merits any consideration is to have a playoff.

 

[JM1776]

Even if that undefeated record was against such a weak schedule?

Perception is not always reality.

Let's take a look at Florida's schedule, in order of quality wins as I perceive them. [Note that we'll put little credence in where they were ranked at that time, as their body of work over a season matters rather than how they were perceived by pollsters at any one time—though I find it interesting that you'll mention UF beating Alabama when they were a consensus number one, but not allow Utah at least some props for beating Michigan in The Big House when they were still perceived, during that time of the season, as a fairly strong team. Can't have it both ways, after all.]:

Oklahoma (NS) (12-1)
Alabama (NS) (12-1)
at Georgia (9-3)
Ole Miss (8-4)
at Florida State (8-4)
LSU (7-5)
South Carolina (7-5)
Miami, Florida (7-5)
at Vanderbilt (6-6)
Kentucky (6-6)
Hawaii (7-6)
at Tennessee (5-7)

The Citadel (4-8)

I'm sure anyone would agree that's an excellent schedule, top to bottom, with only The Citadel as a genuine "week off."

Let's compare Utah's, especially at the top:

Alabama (NS) (12-1)
Texas Christian (10-2)
Brigham Young (10-2)
Oregon State (8-4)
at Air Force (8-4)
Weber State (1-AA) (10-4) [We definitely have to call this a quality win, as they made the 1-AA playoffs and beat Montana.]
Colorado State (6-6)

at Michigan (3-9)
UNLV (5-7) [Note they have a win at Arizona State.]
New Mexico (4-8) [Note they have a win over Arizona.]
Wyoming (4-8) [Note they have a win at Tennessee.]
San Diego State (2-10)

Now that latter part of Utah's schedule is fairly easy. No one's denying that. But if we're going to ask if the Utes were genuinely tested over the course of their season, the answer is an unequivocal yes ... and they passed every time.

UF, on the other hand, was tested more, but failed—at home. Losing at home to what might be a five-loss team is extremely difficult to overlook. It's why Texas also had a real argument—an argument they perhaps win before the unbiased eye—to be rematched against Oklahoma, a team they'd beaten, in the BCS title game over a Florida that played an essentially equivalent (#3 vs. #4) schedule but shit the bird against Ole Miss, a much lower-quality loss.

According to CBS Sportsline (some of those people "who know a lot more about it than we do"), Utah's schedule strength as of right now, even before their BCS game, is superior to that of both USC and Alabama. [Things that make you go "hmm."] It will almost certainly rise as a result of a game against the Tide. You would have little or no difficulty, I imagine, placing either of these power conference fat cats in the top spot were they undefeated and Florida had one loss. [Obviously that can't occur with 'Bama and the Gators in the same conference, but ... you take my meaning, I'm sure.] I think Utah deserves the same regard. USC can bitch all they want, and people can talk about how great their defense is. You know what? If they were a national championship-caliber team, they'd have roused themselves and found a way to beat Oregon State—as Utah did.

That's reality.

I've made strong points for Utah to be in the discussion—again, not win the argument, but be in the argument—for national champion if everything, absolutely everything, shakes out perfectly. You evidently disagree. Your board, your wave.

 

[DaleC76]

Speaking of the I-AA playoffs, does anyone know how they work? There seems to be some questionable inclusions and exclusions, at least to me.

It's a 16 team tournament, and these teams were left out:

11th ranked Southland Champion Central Arkansas (10-2).
14th ranked Big South Champion Liberty (10-2).
15th ranked Ivy League Co-Champion Harvard (9-1).

In favor of teams like:

20th ranked Maine (8-4), finished third in conference.
23rd ranked Texas State (8-4), finished second in conference behind champ Central Arkansas who didn't make the playoffs.

Does anyone know how these teams qualify for the playoffs?

 

[Kolrad]

Division I-AA (now "officially" known as the FCS) includes 14 conferences, but only 8 of them currently get automatic bids for the champions to advance to the playoffs. The other 8 slots are at-large slots filled by invitation.

As for the cases you mentioned, each team has a different reason for not being in the playoffs.

11th ranked Southland Champion Central Arkansas (10-2)-- just moved up from Division II two years ago, and will not be eligible for the Division I-AA playoffs until they've been in the division for four years.

14th ranked Big South Champion Liberty (10-2)-- the Big South is not one of the conferences with an automatic bid, though it will get one in 2010 when the playoffs expand to 20 teams.

15th ranked Ivy League Co-Champion Harvard (9-1)-- the Ivy League does not participate in the playoffs, and never has. I think it's because they don't want the football schedule to interfere with academics or something. Several of the historic schools in the SWAC choose not to participate in the playoffs either.


Thanks for asking the question-- I didn't know about any of this before I went diving into Wikipedia, and it's interesting. Turns out that even with a playoff system, Division I-AA can end up having a split national championship too if one of the non-participating schools ends up #1!

 

[Neroon]

Last night's college football awards show may have given us an indicator of just how close the Heisman vote count is thus year:

Tebow picked up the Maxwell (he won it last year, too)
McCoy won the Walter Camp Player of the Year
Bradford took home the Davey O'Brien for top QB