Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2008/9 COLLEGE Football Thread

MacDawg said:
You can say it over and over... loud... use speakers if you want
ESPN can take all the fan polls they want

You can order rings like Auburn did

But at the end of the day... Thursday actually... Florida or Oklahoma will be NChamps

Not Utah

Look, I have said all along... Utah had a good season
They are a good team
They looked really good against a lackluster 'Bama team

But you will not be National Champs... not even if the AP Poll splits it (sorry Badandy)

The BCS is the system... like it or not


Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
Click to expand...

I refer you to the end of my response to EvilGeek a few posts above this one for my answer to that assertion.

SLC Flyfishing said:
And apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way, you who say Utah doesn't deserve it are very much in the minority. On Fox sports there is a poll going asking whether or not the Utes deserve a shot at the title. So far there are over 95,000 votes and 73% of them say yes! Look at the comments following any story about the Utes and you'll see the same thing.

The Utes are the National Champions, and this year the BCS title is little more than a beauty prize for the winner of that game in the hearts of the American People!
Click to expand...

SLC
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
But Texas and USC aren't undefeated! Utah still is, and the only one in the entire country at that, and therein lies the rub. USC has no argument because they lost to Oregon State and Utah beat them, that alone leaves them out of the talk this season.
Click to expand...

Only 2 teams matter at this point... and Utah is not one of them


Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
You know everyone at the evil BCS headquarters on the top of a mountain somewhere were rooting against Utah. It just kills their system to have a undefeated team not playing for the championship.
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
70% of the voters and and even greater percentage of comments at ESPN and Fox disagree with your claim!
Click to expand...

Sigh...

And exactly which one of the these two places determine the NC?
That's right... neither one

It isn't my claim... it is a FACT
The winner of the Oklahoma/Florida game will be the NC... period
Utah isn't even in the discussion, but cause they will not be in the game

You can disagree with the BCS all you want... we ALL do
The fan voice would have told you USC should have played Georgia last year for the championship
They didn't
I hated to see the Dawgs screwed last year, but that's the way it is
You don't have to like it
But in the end... the BCS is the determining factor for the NC

So... chant "were #1" and hold that foam finger proudly
But the bottom line is... you will be #2 at best and more likely #3 or #4


Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
Beating Oregon State, who beat us, does not mean you'd be ranked above us, or even should be. Let's repeat this again: The transitive property does not apply to sports. It means Penn State should have been ranked above us, no? After all, they killed Oregon State, who we lost to.

By the way, your only quality win was against TCU. The simple fact is that Alabamaplayed ONE game against a good team all season, who they lost to. Besides Coffee (who is a great RB), I just don't see the talent on that team. Jones can catch the ball, but they're just not as complete of a football team as the rest. The teams who should be playing at the end of the season should have been USC, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah.

And if you claim the national championship this year, we were the champs in 2004, right? After all, we were declared the champions by not just "sportsnation votes" but by both human polls. To further add legitimacy, the BCS completely overhauled their formula after recognizing their follies in not making USC the national champs due to the computers, which they realized had far too much sway if in direct opposition to human polling.




USC: Lost one game early in the season in an AWAY game
Florida: Lost one game late in the season in a HOME game

How about Oklahoma? If they win, they'll have jumped to the national championship over the team WHO BEAT THEM but with the same record. Direct head to head should hold the utmost sway. If Texas and Oklahoma win, there is absolutely no way Oklahoma should be national champion.

The simple reality is that a playoff is needed. Penn State was one missed field goal away from getting to the National Championship game as a non-championship-caliber team (no offense obey, you admitted as much yourself in your weaknesses in the secondary). The only way for a national champion to be recognized as the best team EVERY year is a playoff system, where there would be a standardized way to measure your mettle against other great teams, regardless of perceived conference strength.
 
Badandy said:
The simple fact is that Alabama played ONE game against a good team all season, who they lost to.
Click to expand...

C'mon Badandy, you are better than this
You are beginning to sound like SLC
Do you really want to compare schedules with Alabama?
What "good team" did USC play?
I agree, Alabama was not the best team in the country, even when ranked #1
But don't try to make them out to be chumps

How about Oklahoma? If they win, they'll have jumped to the national championship over the team WHO BEAT THEM but with the same record. Direct head to head should hold the utmost sway. If Texas and Oklahoma win, there is absolutely no way Oklahoma should be national champion.
Click to expand...

You know it doesn't work that way
There are a lot of factors other than strictly head to head
I would agree if Texas was undefeated, but they lost to a TT team that OU crushed

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
MacNut said:
More reason for a playoff system.
Click to expand...

Oh, there are plenty of reasons... but we don't have one
And we aren't getting one ;)

OK... you brought it up Badandy so here you go...
If you want to compare to Oklahoma (edit: added)/Texas/Florida I will do that too ;)

*****************************

Bama's Schedule - Opponents Record 78-79
5 Teams with winning records + 2 Teams 6-6
6 Bowl Teams (bold)

Clemson 7-5
Tulane 2-10
Western Kentucky 2-10
Arkansas 5-7
Georgia 9-3
Kentucky 6-6
Ole Miss 8-4
Tennessee 5-7
Arkansas State 6-6
LSU 7-5
Mississippi State 4-8
Auburn 5-7
Florida 12-1

*****************************************
*****************************************

USC's Schedule - Opponents Record 69-75
5 Teams with winning records + 1 Team 6-6
6 Bowl Teams (bold)

Virginia 5-7
Ohio State 10-2
Oregon State 8-4
Oregon 9-3
Arizona State 5-7
Washington State 2-10
Arizona 7-5
Washington 0-12
California 8-4
Stanford 5-7
Notre Dame 6-6
UCLA 4-8

********************************************
********************************************
Edit: Here is Oklahoma for you to consider ;)
Remember, their offense set an NCAA record this year against this schedule

Oklahoma's Schedule - Opponent's Record 90-68
8 Teams with winning record
4 Teams over 10 wins
2 Teams with 9 wins
8 Bowl teams (bold)

Chattanooga 1-11
Cincinnati 11-2
Washington 0-12
TCU 10-2
Baylor 4-8
Texas 11-1
Kansas 7-5
Kansas State 5-7
Nebraska 8-4
Texas A&M 4-8
Texas Tech 11-1
Oklahoma State 9-3
Missouri 9-4


Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
Badandy said:
The simple reality is that a playoff is needed.
Click to expand...

Again, we already have a playoff. One round, one game, two teams - you can try to spin it all you want, but that's a playoff - one which makes sure that one of the two top-seeded teams wins the NC. No possible way for a 8-4 team with a low seed to end up winning the championship.

In other words, it's already the way it should be.
 
MacDawg said:
C'mon Badandy, you are better than this
You are beginning to sound like SLC
Do you really want to compare schedules with Alabama?
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing schedules with Alabama. I'm saying that their schedule, in the SEC, was ridiculously easy. They played one good team, who they lost to. C'mon, did anyone buy their hype? Everyone knew Florida was better, even after losing to Ole Miss...


There are a lot of factors other than strictly head to head
I would agree if Texas was undefeated, but they lost to a TT team that OU crushed
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're joking MacDawg. You're going to put OU ahead of Texas because of a common opponent? Texas beat OU HEAD TO HEAD. That's ridiculous. The common opponent statistic is nearly useless, and completely useless when the two teams have played a head to head.


Tomorrow said:
Again, we already have a playoff. One round, one game, two teams - you can try to spin it all you want, but that's a playoff - one which makes sure that one of the two top-seeded teams wins the NC. No possible way for a 8-4 team with a low seed to end up winning the championship.
Click to expand...

Argue semantics all you want, but one game is not a playoff. The problem is that the best team in college football might not be the 1 or two seed. What if Utah is the best? They're undefeated, they beat Alabama. You're not going to give them a shot? What about when there's controversy: USC lost an away game early in the season and got shafted even though Florida lost a home game late in the season. How about Texas and OU? OU and Texas are one loss teams, but OU is ahead of Texas even though THEY LOST TO THEM. The point is, there's always controversy. Sometimes there are more than two teams who can lay legitimate claim to be in the running for a national championship. Now that is the way the system really works.

If you had a 4 team or 8 team playoff this would be remedied easily. At least in this system, you'd need to be ranked either 5th or 9th to be on the outside looking in. Not only that, but the national champion, 95% of the time, would stand as the best team in college football, and that's more than we can say right now.

In other words, it's already the way it should be.
Click to expand...

If you think the current BCS system is the way it should be, I'd shudder to consider your views on politics and actual, important issues.
 
Badandy said:
I'm not comparing schedules with Alabama. I'm saying that their schedule, in the SEC, was ridiculously easy. They played one good team, who they lost to. C'mon, did anyone buy their hype? Everyone knew Florida was better, even after losing to Ole Miss...
Click to expand...

Ridiculously easy huh... the point of posting the schedules was to show it was comparable to USC's.
Was USC's schedule ridiculously easy too?

One good team? I assume you mean Florida
So Georgia wasn't a good team in your estimation?
Interesting... and neither was Ole Miss who beat TT like a drum?

Again, what good teams did USC play again?

And you keep saying Florida lost "late in the season"
USC lost their 3rd game
Florida lost their 4th game
Hardly "late in the season"

You also point out how good Oregon State was
And how bad Ole Miss was
They were both 8-4
Oregon State beat a 9-3 Pitt team in the bowls
Ole Miss beat an 11-1 Texas Tech team in the bowls
Florida lost by 1 to Ole Miss and led much of the game and lost on a 4th and inches
USC lost by 6 to Oregon State and was dominated most of the game

And I don't even like the Gators... I hate the Gators™
You continually distort reality for your own gain... until you get called out on it

And OU was ahead of Texas because it was a 3 way tie, not a straight head to head situation
I didn't make the conference rules... but that's the way it goes
Like I said... many factors


Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
A few things I think are pretty funny:

First, I think it is really funny that people are saying that Utah shouldn't even be considered to be a national champion because USC, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida would kill them. If I remember correctly, Alabama was supposed to kill Utah as well. But now Alabama sucks all of a sudden and it's only the other teams that are good now? :confused:

I also find if funny that USC thinks they are more deserving of the national title than Utah. Let's just forget they aren't undefeated like Utah is for the moment and consider what most USC fans are pointing to - the fact the creamed Penn State. Is that even a big deal? Did anyone think Penn State was going to win that game besides MacDawg?

I think the biggest argument Utah has is that they beat a team that was considered one of the best the entire season. They were ranked #1 for a solid 5 weeks before they lost to Florida (and I have to say, I thought Alabama outplayed Florida in that game. If they had some more time, I think Alabama would have won.)

And we aren't talking about Utah beating the previously amazing Alabama team by some last second field goal either. Utah creamed Alabama. If it wasn't for that embarrassing punt return, the only highlights of the game would have been Utah's.

Absolute domination of a team that people claimed was one of the nation's finest before the 2nd of January. Now everyone just says Alabama was overrated and Utah didn't beat that great of an opponent anyway.

How many times does the story have to change before people start admitting that Utah had one solid team this year?

P-Worm
 
P-Worm said:
How many times does the story have to change before people start admitting that Utah had one solid team this year?

P-Worm
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone questions whether Utah has a solid team
They do... and they had a good year... a great year
National Champions? Not in my opinion... but that is all it is

The BCS is the standard by which the teams are judged
Like it or not

The 2 teams in the game are Oklahoma and Florida
That is what we have... not Texas, not USC, not Utah
At the end of the game, they will not present the trophy to Utah
It will go to the winner of that game

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
Badandy said:
You're going to put OU ahead of Texas because of a common opponent? Texas beat OU HEAD TO HEAD. That's ridiculous. The common opponent statistic is nearly useless, and completely useless when the two teams have played a head to head.
Click to expand...

You're almost right. If they played head to head and only tied head to head, then your argument holds. Thing is, they didn't tie head to head, they were two teams in a three way tie. At that point, common opponent comes into play, and head to head becomes useless.

Badandy said:
Argue semantics all you want, but one game is not a playoff. The problem is that the best team in college football might not be the 1 or two seed.
Click to expand...

Come on, Badandy, this entire discussion is about semantics. You see it one way and I see it another. The best college football team might not be #1; they might be #2. Either is many times more likely than the best team being #8.

Badandy said:
If you had a 4 team or 8 team playoff this would be remedied easily. At least in this system, you'd need to be ranked either 5th or 9th to be on the outside looking in. Not only that, but the national champion, 95% of the time, would stand as the best team in college football, and that's more than we can say right now.
Click to expand...

Now this point is just flat-out wrong. If you expand the number of teams in a playoff field then you increase the probability that the "best team" will not win, because you're introducing many more opportunities for upsets (where an inferior team beats a superior team). Your "95%" argument doesn't hold water.

Badandy said:
If you think the current BCS system is the way it should be, I'd shudder to consider your views on politics and actual, important issues.
Click to expand...

I'd be glad to discuss them. Just like this thread, you might find that not everyone conforms to a hive mind, most of us - most likely, you included - examine a set of facts and arrive at our own opinions, and they may or may not be the same as everyone else's. In the meantime, I don't think the BCS is perfect, but I do think that selecting the top two teams to play for the NC is the best way to go, and not expanding the field to four or *shudder* 8.
 
OK, lets switch gears ;)

Two big games remaining!

Monday night: Texas v. Ohio State
Thursday night: Oklahoma v. Florida

I realize my predictions have been less than stellar :rolleyes:
I have picked a few upsets that didn't work out and I have been wrong a few times

But I like Texas to take down Ohio State
And I like Oklahoma to outscore Florida

I think both of them should be great games

I hate the Gators™

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
Badandy said:
Beating Oregon State, who beat us, does not mean you'd be ranked above us, or even should be. Let's repeat this again: The transitive property does not apply to sports. It means Penn State should have been ranked above us, no? After all, they killed Oregon State, who we lost to.
Click to expand...

Utah should (and will be) ranked above USC because they beat Oregon State who beat USC. But the part you don't realize makes the biggest difference is that Utah is still undefeated, USC isn't. USC has one loss, and that loss happens to be at the hand of a team that Utah didn't lose to, is it so crazy to think that qualifies Utah to be ranked higher after all is said and done than USC? We beat a better opponent in our BCS bowl too, how about that?

I think Florida wins the National Title game by 3 and it's an ugly game with a lot of penalties and the like. And I'm now the biggest fan of Ohio State, at least till the end of the Fiesta Bowl. That should remove all doubt.

If you can't bring it every single time the game is played, you've no business being called the Champions!

SLC
 
obey908 said:
utah..national champions...
1068.gif


florida, oklahoma and texas would eat them for breakfast
Click to expand...

Ahh look. Obey908 made us a video of himself laughing at the thought of Utah being Champions!

Think Florida Oklahoma and Texas would eat us for breakfast? I say bring em on, I want to find out. There's no legitimate champion until we all know what would happen on the field.

SLC
 
Tomorrow said:
Now this point is just flat-out wrong. If you expand the number of teams in a playoff field then you increase the probability that the "best team" will not win, because you're introducing many more opportunities for upsets (where an inferior team beats a superior team). Your "95%" argument doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

A true Champion would not ever be "upset", if they can't beat a team that's supposed to be "not as good" then they have no business being called champions. That's the stupidest claim I've read in this entire thread!

SLC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back