NCAA Football 2008 Discussion - It All Starts Here.
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
Congrats Utah! Hailing from the land of Boise State, the land of another
13-0 team to win a BCS bowl game.
No case though, Alabama lost to the number two team in the nation who is
now in the National Title game. I don't think Utah could beat that team though
I do favor a playoff system.
Now go Florida! Show em again where football champions are bred!
The Sunshine State.
13-0 team to win a BCS bowl game.
No case though, Alabama lost to the number two team in the nation who is
now in the National Title game. I don't think Utah could beat that team though
I do favor a playoff system.
Now go Florida! Show em again where football champions are bred!
The Sunshine State.
Then perhaps they shouldn't have played. It counts fully against them.
Perhaps "lackluster" was a bit harsh for the overall effort, but ...
...their defense in the latter part of the game was beyond pathetic. Oregon laid five touchdowns on them—an almost, dare I say it, Sooner-like exhibition. The Cowboys gave up an average of 37.5 points over their last two games—in the second half alone. I think Mikey needs to work on those halftime adjustments.
Injuries are a part of football. I didn't hear Oregon complaining about starting its nineteenth-string quarterback. And when a team lays a concussion on one of your players (so long as the hit was clean), it counts as defensive pressure, not misfortune.
You mean the same way Ole Miss couldn't possibly beat Florida in Gainesville?
Note that Utah handled Alabama more impressively, and before a more hostile crowd thousands of miles from their fanbase, than did Florida, a figurative stone's throw from home.
The list of quality victims is rather impressive:
- Air Force
- Weber State
- Oregon State
- Texas Christian
- Brigham Young
- Alabama
This is Florida post Ole Miss. Different story.
Same season. Deal with it.
In the National Title game... so am.
And what I am saying is that though good and I am glad for them, Utah
would not be able to beat a post-Ole Miss, Florida. Same season, more driven team.
The loss to a team they should have beat kicked them into high gear.
would not be able to beat a post-Ole Miss, Florida. Same season, more driven team.
The loss to a team they should have beat kicked them into high gear.
I think Florida's been incredibly impressive since the Mississippi loss, and I actually look forward to their defeat of Oklahoma Thursday. I hope they stomp and chomp the Sooners.
And yet, as I've already pointed out, Utah beat their common opponent more impressively than even the awakened Florida did, and did so in front of a largely hostile crowd.
Thus, it's pretty obvious that your "would not be able to" is, like it or not, admit it or not, "most likely would not be able to."
Utah would have a chance. Ask the Crimson Tide about that.
I keep hearing some of the talking heads say that if you have a playoff system, you remove the integrity of the bowls and some crap like that. I'm sorry if this sounds rude, mean, and whatever, but if you like the BCS as it is now, you're an idiot.
I bet all the BCS proponents are rushing to alter their take on things after that devastatingly logical deconstruction of their position.
Well, it would be the smartest thing they ever did if that happens. I just hear people like Lee Corso (Or was it Herbstreet) on ESPN actually say they like the bowl system as it is. It is absolutely a travesty they actually get paid for saying crap like that, and I like both of them.
I think you're may be remembering John Saunders on The Sports Reporters, actually. He gives solid reasons for his position, and I for one agree with him wholeheartedly. I'm unshakeably against a playoff.
Then, again, I think ties should be reintroduced, that overtime is totally unnecessary and quarterbacks should be treated like any other player—which I'd say is a fairly old-school, practically reactionary perspective.
Why are you against a playoff system. Why not give teams like Boise St and Utah a chance to prove themselves that they are the best team in the country. Under the current system, nothing is rewarded for success that is put on the field. What good is the regular season where if you don't go undefeated, you're pretty much dead in the water. This current system makes no sense other than to fill wallets of the presidents and owners. It's a joke.
Here are a few of my reasons:
Fortunately, my way's going to prevail indefinitely. There's too much money to be made.
- I like the fact that numerous I-A teams get to end their season with a win, and that fully half enjoy the pageantry and publicity of playing in a bowl.
- I immensely enjoy the debate and discussion surrounding the entire bowl system ... and how, oftentimes, things are not definitively settled.
- I don't like the idea that a three-loss team could slip into a eight-strong playoff at the bottom of the bracket and, with a three-game winning streak, be considered "national champion." [Worse would be a four-loss team doing the same in a sixteen-team bracket.] To me, that's the joke ... and eventually it would happen that some four-loss team the pundits had decided was immensely talented and deserving in the preseason would win a close battle with some until-that-point undefeated squad and take a national title away from the clearly less lauded but more-deserving bunch. In my opinion, body of work should decisively trump a hot streak ... and in I-A college football's current setup, it does far more often than not. [It's one of the reasons I find the whole "win your conference tournament, go to the Big Dance" system a travesty. You should get the automatic bid for winning your conference's regular season (as the Ivy League champ does).] It's a joke when some 13-15 team that finished 6-10 in its conference has a great tournament and forces a 25-4 team that went 15-1 into the NIT just because they got hot for three days.]
- I think that a playoff absolutely ruins the sense of urgency inherent with the regular season—especially for the elite squads, who could suddenly afford a loss, two or even, in some cases, three and still be viably in the mix. The BCS proponents' argument that, "Currently, every game is potentially a playoff" has never been substantively refuted.
Fortunately, my way's going to prevail indefinitely. There's too much money to be made.
I have been anti-playoffs recently but I am warming up to the "unseeded plus 1" idea (which, come to think of it, is not playoffs anyway). It would make the major Bowls more relevant again (like they were pre-BSC), as team like Texas, Penn State, USC, Alabama, Utah would still have a shot to make it to the NC game. And it shouldn't distract from the regular season in any way. Since it increases the value of Bowl games, I think it has some chance of getting approved in our lifetime.
