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

2010-2011 College Football Thread

Welcome back, evilGEEK! Sorry to hear about your problems but glad to see that everything is getting back to normal for you and your family. Hope the surgery goes/went well.

The Vegas Bowl was brutal to watch early on with both teams shooting themselves in the foot (feet?) repeatedly, but like we all suspected, once they got comfortable the Broncos rolled an overrated Ute squad.

As for the Ohio State situation, I think the NCAA has proven over and over that some schools just don't get punished, no matter what they do. That's why the action taken against USC was so surprising, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they convert that earlier harsh penalty into a wrist-slap.
 
Merry Christmas all you College Football fans

I hope Santa brings your team everything it needs for next year

For the Dawgs, that would be...

A much stronger and more aggressive defense
 
MacDawg said:
Merry Christmas all you College Football fans

I hope Santa brings your team everything it needs for next year

For the Dawgs, that would be...

A much stronger and more aggressive defense
Click to expand...

Santa already brought some great stuff for my Dawgs. I'll happily take a New Year's Day bowl and Dan Mullen not leaving. For next year, I'd like to see us keep our recruiting class.
 
MacDawg said:
OK, enough with the corporate sponsorship :mad:
The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl? You gotta be kiddin' me!
The Beef O'Brady Bowl??

I am old enough to remember when it was a big deal to get invited to a bowl
It was all on New Year's Day and it was the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton Bowls
No other bowls really mattered

"The Rose Bowl Presented by Vizio"??
Even the Granddaddy of the all has sold out

I understand it is all about $$$
And that bowl teams get extra practice
But this is like giving everybody in Little League a participation trophy

Anybody else "old school" like me when it comes to the bowls?

Here is a select list

uDROVE HUMANITARIAN BOWL
R+L CARRIERS NEW ORLEANS BOWL
BEEF 'O' BRADY'S BOWL ST. PETERSBURG
MAACO BOWL LAS VEGAS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION POINSETTIA BOWL
SHERATON HAWAII BOWL
LITTLE CAESARS BOWL
AdvoCare V100 INDEPENDENCE BOWL
CHAMPS SPORTS BOWL
INSIGHT BOWL
MILITARY BOWL PRESENTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN
VALERO ALAMO BOWL
BELL HELICOPTER ARMED FORCES BOWL
NEW ERA PINSTRIPE BOWL
FRANKLIN AMERICAN MORTGAGE MUSIC CITY BOWL
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION HOLIDAY BOWL
MEINEKE CAR CARE BOWL
HYUNDAI SUN BOWL
AutoZone LIBERTY BOWL
TICKETCITY BOWL
CAPITAL ONE BOWL
OUTBACK BOWL
PROGRESSIVE GATOR BOWL
ROSE BOWL GAME PRESENTED BY VIZIO
TOSTITOS FIESTA BOWL
DISCOVER ORANGE BOW
ALLSTATE SUGAR BOWL
GODADDY.com BOWL
AT&T COTTON BOWL
BBVA COMPASS BOWL
KRAFT FIGHT HUNGER BOWL
Click to expand...

i'm not as irked about the corporate names (expect for the fight hunger bowl, which sounds like a complete joke), but there are way too many bowl games out there. i heard about half of them actually lose money. i remember when all bowl games were important, and christmas day was the first bowl game, and new years day was the big bowl day. maybe another bowl game the day after new years, but for the most part, new year's day wrapped up bowl season, and it was bowls all day, all night. there was none of these 'lower' bowls close to new years. after all these extra bowls came along (i'm still wondering why we doubled our bowl count in just over a decade), it just ruined things.

slim the bowl season down, and start by cutting the following bowls:
BEEF 'O' BRADY'S BOWL ST. PETERSBURG
NEW MEXICO BOWL
INSIGHT BOWL
TICKETCITY BOWL
BBVA COMPASS BOWL
KRAFT FIGHT HUNGER BOWL
GODADDY.com BOWL
NEW ERA PINSTRIPE BOWL

move the cotton bowl back to new year's day (it's on jan. 7th this year), and put the bcs back on fox (or give cbs a try). bcs national championship is on jan. 5th at the latest. any questions?
 
furcalchick said:
put the bcs back on fox (or give cbs a try).
Click to expand...

FOX's college football coverage is horrendous - it's like they're covering a pro game, only with the added misery of listening to them wash Tebow's balls for three and a half hours. CBS isn't much better.

ABC/ESPN is where it's at for college coverage, all the way.
 
Tomorrow said:
FOX's college football coverage is horrendous - it's like they're covering a pro game, only with the added misery of listening to them wash Tebow's balls for three and a half hours. CBS isn't much better.

ABC/ESPN is where it's at for college coverage, all the way.
Click to expand...

i only said no to ESPN because they would put those puppies all on cable, as they are draining ABC dry of sports. in that aspect, ABC looks like NBC after they lost the NBA. the BCS is all on cable, and ABC has just one bowl game this year folks.
 
Tomorrow said:
FOX's college football coverage is horrendous - it's like they're covering a pro game, only with the added misery of listening to them wash Tebow's balls for three and a half hours. CBS isn't much better.

ABC/ESPN is where it's at for college coverage, all the way.
Click to expand...

I actually prefer the CBS coverage even though A&M never plays on it. Their HD is much better looking and they don't employ Brent Musburger (quite possibly the worst tv play-by-play man...ever).

furcalchick said:
m.o.n.e.y.
Click to expand...

There is far more money to be made in a playoff, but until the AD's, conference commissioners and school presidents quite being complicit in the bowl system's downright thievery of postseason revenue, nothing will change.

I've never rooted for him before, in anything, but I'm pulling hard for Mark Cuban now.
 
IgnatiusTheKing said:
I actually prefer the CBS coverage even though A&M never plays on it. Their HD is much better looking and they don't employ Brent Musburger (quite possibly the worst tv play-by-play man...ever).



There is far more money to be made in a playoff, but until the AD's, conference commissioners and school presidents quite being complicit in the bowl system's downright thievery of postseason revenue, nothing will change.

I've never rooted for him before, in anything, but I'm pulling hard for Mark Cuban now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but CBS does use Verne Lundquist, who is terrible. He never was all that good, but he has gotten senile as he has gotten older. He also is pretty blatant about is love of certain teams. But you are right, Fox's announcers weren't very good either. Neither is Musburger. ESPN's top crews are pretty good, but by the time you get down the line, they get pretty bad. And Herm Edwards should never be allowed to do any booth work again. He did 4 or 5 of our games and still couldn't get lots of stuff right. Hey Herm, Our QB's name is Chris RELF, not Ralph. It's Starkville, not StarkSville. And our coach's name is Dan Mullen. No "s" on the end of his name. I just wish we could clone Keith Jackson. He was the best.

Like that SI article I posted, the ADs, coaches, and school presidents are getting all kinds bribes to keep the current system. It isn't going anywhere any time soon, no matter how much we want to kill it.
 
einmusiker said:
bcs really is bs. the only fair thing would be an 8 team playoff. what's so hard about that?
Click to expand...

Okay, how is an 8-team playoff any more fair than a 2-team playoff?

Don't go on about TCU missing out on the championship at #3; it's just as unfair for the #9 team to miss out on the bracket with 8 teams.

At least with our current system the champion goes into the postseason ranked no lower than #2. With your idea, you could have #7 play #8 for the title. No thanks.
 
Tomorrow said:
Okay, how is an 8-team playoff any more fair than a 2-team playoff?
Click to expand...
Really? There have been numerous years where there has been more than 3 undefeated teams.
Don't go on about TCU missing out on the championship at #3; it's just as unfair for the #9 team to miss out on the bracket with 8 teams.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is never 8 undefeated teams in a season and the talent between #3 and #1 is much less in many years than #8 and #1 so leaving out #9 isn't as substantial
At least with our current system the champion goes into the postseason ranked no lower than #2. With your idea, you could have #7 play #8 for the title. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Why not? Have the season to play for seeding and then the tourny sorts it out....like march madness
 
dukebound85 said:
Really? There have been numerous years where there has been more than 3 undefeated teams.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about undefeated teams, I said the top two teams. The number of undefeated teams is irrelevant.

I disagree. There is never 8 undefeated teams in a season and the talent between #3 and #1 is much less in many years than #8 and #1 so leaving out #9 isn't as substantial
Click to expand...

Still, I'm not interested in seeing a #8 team play for the championship if I can watch #1 vs. #2.

Why not? Have the season to play for seeding and then the tourny sorts it out....like march madness
Click to expand...

The NCAA basketball tournament is WAY overblown, IMO. No need for more than about four, maybe eight teams in that tournament.

Again, you're trying to turn college football into something it isn't - in this case, you want to turn it into basketball. And again, I say "no thanks."
 
Tomorrow said:
I didn't say anything about undefeated teams, I said the top two teams. The number of undefeated teams is irrelevant.



Still, I'm not interested in seeing a #8 team play for the championship if I can watch #1 vs. #2.



The NCAA basketball tournament is WAY overblown, IMO. No need for more than about four, maybe eight teams in that tournament.

Again, you're trying to turn college football into something it isn't - in this case, you want to turn it into basketball. And again, I say "no thanks."
Click to expand...

The problem is agreeing who is #1 vs. #2. Who knows, TCU may be able to beat Auburn or Oregon. Wisconsin was playing very well down the stretch and would be hot going into the playoffs. #8 Arkansas played very well toward the end of the season. Who's to say they couldn't beat Oregon or TCU? You see this kind of stuff happen all the time in the NFL.

The NCAA tourney is hardly overblown. Yeah, 64 and the newly expanded version may be a bit much, but it brings some great stores and great basketball. With only 8 teams, we never would have seen Butler vs. Duke in the finals last year. Or George Mason coming out of nowhere to make it to the final four. Or, my personal favorite, in 1996 Mississippi State was a good but not great team. We won the SEC tourney by beating top ranked Kentucky. We then went on a roll to the Final Four, beating several good teams including Syracuse and Cincinnati. If you like college basketball, that kind of stuff is very entertaining. Without having those types of teams in the tournament, it would be a lot more boring.
 
steve2112 said:
The problem is agreeing who is #1 vs. #2.
Click to expand...

And you'll also have to agree who is #8 and #9. One is not without more controversy than the other.

Still, opening it up to teams ranked that low still cheapens the championship, IMO. The top two teams settling it is ALWAYS better than any other pair of teams, every time, without exception.

Who knows, TCU may be able to beat Auburn or Oregon. Wisconsin was playing very well down the stretch and would be hot going into the playoffs. #8 Arkansas played very well toward the end of the season. Who's to say they couldn't beat Oregon or TCU?
Click to expand...

Upsets happen, of course. Still, few people are voting Arkansas ahead of Auburn or Oregon. Why? Because they don't think Arkansas is better.

You see this kind of stuff happen all the time in the NFL.
Click to expand...

Yet another reason I don't watch the NFL. A team rests its starters down the stretch because their playoff position is solid? No thanks. A team thinks a Week 5 loss isn't that big a deal? I'll pass.

The NCAA tourney is hardly overblown. Yeah, 64 and the newly expanded version may be a bit much, but it brings some great stores and great basketball.
Click to expand...

I don't want to watch a story; I want to crown a champion, and I want it to be the best team, not the one that pulls off the most timely upset.
 
The problem is that a team can go undefeated yet do to the conference they are in, will have many critics about the conference

This is the problem with having so few games

I think of all sports that need a playoff, football is it as the teams need to prove it on the field for no other reason than that of problems a short schedule creates

I would much rather have teams earn their wins in a playoff to get to a championship game than have it be decided by voters
 
steve2112 said:
The problem is agreeing who is #1 vs. #2. Who knows, TCU may be able to beat Auburn or Oregon. Wisconsin was playing very well down the stretch and would be hot going into the playoffs. #8 Arkansas played very well toward the end of the season. Who's to say they couldn't beat Oregon or TCU? You see this kind of stuff happen all the time in the NFL.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The top two teams in a human poll might not be the actual two best teams, but if you had an 8 team playoff, you could be fairly certain they'd be in the top 8 in a poll. I personally don't think Oregon is a number 2 caliber team, but if they are, it'd still stay true in a playoff. But I think a Wisconsin, TCU, or even an Arkansas would have a shot. You can't just take the top two teams in a human poll and say they are the best teams definitively. If there was no need for playoffs, why doesn't the NFL just take the best record team from the NFC and AFC and play the Super Bowl two weeks after the last regular season game? Someone might not want to watch an 8 vs 1 college playoff game, but I personally would find it interesting as hell. I think year end, year out, we'd see teams other than 1 vs. 2 in the championship game in a true 8 team playoff. And if you're only wanting to see 1 vs. 2, if they really are #1 and #2, they SHOULD meet in the championship game anyway. So you'd get to watch two bonus games of theirs before the championship! :D

Added: this year might be a good case for just a "1 vs.2" in the polls championship, but take this scenario for example: let's say you have an SEC powerhouse go undefeated, a typical Big 10 or 12 powerhouse go undefeated, and a PAC 10 powerhouse go undefeated, and end up 1,2 and 3 in the polls. Now...who says any of those teams is the best? But with the current system, only two get to play for the title, and more than likely in that scenario it's going to be the two that started out with the highest preseason poll rankings. Is that fair? Or would it be more fun to watch those teams duke it out on the field in a playoff?
 
Last edited:
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