|
Post by khalfie on Dec 30, 2006 19:23:56 GMT -6
College football...
1. The polls are entirely useless...
Teams that are ranked preseason top 10 are usually there because of the seniors that just recently left the school. The highly ranked returning team, does not deserve the high ranking they recieve... as a matter of fact, before week 5, when conference play has occurred, no team deserves to be ranked.
If you aren't ranked preseason top 10, your chances of being national champs are slim to none, especially if you are not from a power conference.
2. Iowa played well... but the big 10 has yet to win a bowl game... and we are to believe that the best 2 teams in the nation are in this weak a$$ conference?
No disrespect to Michigan or Ohio St... but who have they played? Big 10 and ND... and O state beat a very, very, young Texas... who barely got passed a below .500 Iowa.
3. As much as I love college football... there is no way to objectively discern who is good and who are pretenders. There are more than enough butt squads to build a respectable record with... there are so many teams, that you can go through a season without having to play good teams...
We never know if its the best playing the best... or just a good vs the good...
4. Without a playoff soon, I can't see CFB keeping my interest, besides my alma mater... and which ever team Ty's coaching!
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Dec 30, 2006 19:25:29 GMT -6
College football... 1. The polls are entirely useless... Teams that are ranked preseason top 10 are usually there because of the seniors that just recently left the school. The highly ranked returning team, does not deserve the high ranking they recieve... as a matter of fact, before week 5, when conference play has occurred, no team deserves to be ranked. If you aren't ranked preseason top 10, your chances of being national champs are slim to none, especially if you are not from a power conference. 2. Iowa played well... but the big 10 has yet to win a bowl game... and we are to believe that the best 2 teams in the nation are in this weak a$$ conference? No disrespect to Michigan or Ohio St... but who have they played? Big 10 and ND... and O state beat a very, very, young Texas... who barely got passed a below .500 Iowa. 3. As much as I love college football... there is no way to objectively discern who is good and who are pretenders. There are more than enough butt squads to build a respectable record with... there are so many teams, that you can go through a season without having to play good teams... We never know if its the best playing the best... or just a good vs the good... 4. Without a playoff soon, I can't see CFB keeping my interest, besides my alma mater... and which ever team Ty's coaching! Totally agree with you. A playoff system that does not mirror what the lower divisions of college ball would be a joke.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 30, 2006 19:43:59 GMT -6
I don't particularly like Ohio State but how could anybody possibly justify them not being in the championship game?
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Dec 30, 2006 20:25:09 GMT -6
I think OSU is the best team but 2-10 is up for grabs. I am not saying anything original here but D-1A football needs a playoff. And not one selected by the BCS. Give each conference champ an automatic bid. Then have a selection comittee fill in the rest to get to 16. Each team gets one week off then the playoffs start with the championship game alternatng sites. The teams that do not make the playoffs can still go bowling...kind of like getting an NIT bid in the men's basketball tourney.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 30, 2006 20:33:57 GMT -6
posted this in an earlier threadHere is a great article in Stewart Mandel's "mailbag" (Sports Illustrated columnist). Discusses the BCS & playoff scenario and what it would all take to get a playoff system in Division-I football. Good perspective & analogy. Thought I would share a portion. Everyone wants to ditch BCS, but here's the realityIf I could sum up the BCS/playoff conundrum using a real-life analogy, it would be this: Let's say you work in an office and you come into work on Monday to find that the copier has died. There would seem to be one clear, obvious solution to this problem: Replace the copier. After discussing the matter with several of your co-workers, they're all in agreement: the copier is broken and it needs to be replaced. You bring this up to your office manager, and she also agrees that, yes, something needs to be done about the broken copier. Three weeks later, you walk into work and the same, non-functioning copier is sitting right where you left it. Why? Because your office manager needs clearance from her supervisor before making such a major purchase. And while the supervisor shares everyone's concerns about the copier, he's facing pressure from his supervisor to reduce spending in the office and is going to need a thorough review of company copying needs before determining whether a new copier is truly the best course of action. Finally, your office has a longstanding relationship with Kinko's, and Kinko's has been reminding your boss on a weekly basis how loyal it's been to your company over the years and how it hopes you will keep that in mind when making any future copying decisions. The end result of all this is that, while nearly everyone involved agrees that something should be done about the broken copier, it will wind up staying there for the conceivable future. The broken copier represents the BCS. You and your co-workers represent the vast majority of college football fans and coaches who feel that replacing the current system with a playoff should be a no-brainer. The office manager represents college athletic directors, who, while firmly in control of their own domains, are largely powerless to make changes to the broader sport. The office manager's supervisor represents conference commissioners, most of whom are in favor of going to at least a plus-one game. But although they're the ones who operate and administer the BCS, they still need the approval of a higher power before making any sweeping changes. The supervisor's supervisor represents that higher power: university presidents. They're the ones who have the ultimate say, and they remain unsold on the merits of a playoff, mostly because it's their lone remaining stand in the debate over athletics' place in academia (even though we all know that ship sailed a long, long time ago). And Kinko's represents the bowl games, whose opposition to a playoff is understandably grounded in their own business interests and whose long-standing loyalty to the sport makes all the aforementioned leaders hesitant to do anything that would potentially hurt the bowls. I tried to figure out a way to work the NCAA -- which would have to officially sanction any change to the current bowl system -- into the analogy as well. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of an every-day office equivalent to a large governing body that would likely form a committee, which would then prepare a report to be forwarded to another committee, which would then make its recommendations to a third committee before agreeing to buy the copier. So as you can see, the situation is infinitely more complicated than any 600-word newspaper column or 30-second television rant would have you believe. "Throw out the BCS," you say. "Give us a freaking playoff, already." Fair enough. All you've got to do is get the thousands of men and women who comprise all the aforementioned parties to agree how to do it. click here to read the rest of Stewart Mandel's College Football Mailbag
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 30, 2006 20:34:33 GMT -6
It won't happen because nobody involved-coaches, presidents, ADs-want it.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 30, 2006 20:38:05 GMT -6
college football, bar none, is the best form of American Football there is.
I wouldn't let the hubris of determining the concensus "National Champion" spoil perfectly good product.
Every year there is the moaning and gnashing of teeth of die-hard fans that feel their team was disrespected......but (nearly) every year...we get some really great Bowl Game matchups that we would not typically get in regular season play.
College Football captures everything that is good about this game.....Student Athletes (recruiting), Coaching determining the majority of games, a broad flavor of offenses and defenses, player development and maturity.Pagentry, Alum support, Boosters, Parental involvement, etc.........
I think if you watch ESPN and the like enough, they will convince you the GAME doesn't matter - that it's all about the scandal and storylines of griping about National Champions.
Until there are legitimate conferences to win in a playoff tier, there will never be a decent playoff system for DI College ball.....and even when there is one, it isn't going to revolutionize the game we are watching today.
Bowl games are great avenues alum, students, fans, and parents can take pride in and participate in during the Holiday season.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 30, 2006 20:54:15 GMT -6
why the big ten loses bowls is really simple, they play a different brand of football based on conditions. no other confrence has the conditions which the big ten plays in. start of season hot as heck and end of season it is cold.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 30, 2006 20:57:42 GMT -6
why the big ten loses bowls is really simple, they play a different brand of football based on conditions. no other confrence has the conditions which the big ten plays in. start of season hot as heck and end of season it is cold. this is something to consider, no doubt. but, other schools have to play in similar 'bad' conditions. plus, doesn't minnesota play in a dome? (i'm not sure)
|
|
|
Post by CoachJohnsonMN on Dec 30, 2006 21:06:35 GMT -6
I agree with you Brophy. I am so sick of the NFL. College football provides the variety that is missing in the pro's. Everyone has an opportunity to place allegiance and pride to programs in their state. Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, ect.--these states go absolutely crazy for THEIR team due to the lack of a professional team. There is so much more pride involved in the college ranks. BCS or playoffs--the college game continues to increase my interest.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 30, 2006 21:08:10 GMT -6
Big Ten differences?
When was the last time it has been freakishly cold or snowing in the regular season in the Big Ten in the last 6 years?
How many early Miami games are played every year during a pre-Hurricane "Tropical Storms"?
My main gripe about the Big Ten (forgive me) is that they DO NOT have a championship game and seems like there are always Co-Conference Champions every year. Why? because there is no championship games, no division of that conference, so you don't HAVE to play any of the traditional "powerhouses" (@ Michigan, @ Happy Valley, @ OSU) and come out unscathed in November, griping for contention as conference champ.
Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, and for the most part Minnesota have been the whipping boys for Iowa, Michigan, PSU, and Ohio State. Until that conference is split into divisions then square off in a championship game, "successful" teams can duck and hide with soft schedules, cruising into National Title games or the Rose Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by CoachJohnsonMN on Dec 30, 2006 21:08:31 GMT -6
Dome or no dome--the Gophers need to worry about their pass defense.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 30, 2006 21:15:30 GMT -6
like the original topic hinted at:
you don't play your way IN to the BCS Championship game ... you play your way OUT
i.e. preseason rankings, etc. essentially give a handful of teams the championship game for their taking way back at beginning of the season. those that "trip up" during the season play themselves out.
|
|
|
Post by slydaddy on Dec 30, 2006 21:33:42 GMT -6
But why is Ohio State #1? Tell me what they have accomplished to be #1. They almost got beat by Illinois, the fighting Zooks. If they had won a conference championship, then maybe they could be considered. They basically defeated a very weak Big Ten. If they played in the SEC, they would probably place behind Kentucky and South Carolina. Now, if they beat Florida to win the BCS championship, then I will gladly say I am wrong. Just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 30, 2006 21:46:03 GMT -6
Hey... hey... hey...
Slydaddy... don't start dissing the Zookster... he's doing a hell of a job recruiting for the talent dead Illini... he puts together a couple of more recruiting classes, like the previous two... and Illinois will soon be a power...
But to a certain extent I agree... Ohio State, is where they are, because of last years team, where they were ranked in the preseason, and the weakness of their schedule. That formula could have had a lot of teams undefeated, and prime for a national championship.
|
|
|
Post by jdwatters on Dec 30, 2006 21:56:41 GMT -6
I don't understand why the Big 10's power teams close wins(OSU and Illinois, Michigan and Ball St. for example) are being scrutinized but UF's close wins against SC for example are not. It's just too complicated to sit here and analyze the quality of a team's win or the quality of a team's loss for that matter and have everyone reach a consensus. It's just not possible.
One thing I can say for certain is don't sit here and tell me Ohio St. does not deserve to be in the Nat'l Championship game. They are undefeated. They have quality wins against Texas and Michigan, and wins against good Iowa and PSU teams. Not great, but good. They are the best team in the nation. They will prove it against UF. And maybe Mark May on ESPN can stop ranting about how great the SEC is.
Doesn't it in a way come down to a conference and location bias? I'm sure people in the North would argue that the Big 10 is a solid conference, just like people in the south would argue the SEC is #1 and deserves more recognition, and people in the Midwest would tend to be pro Big 12, and people out west would pump up the Pac 10.
We are all going to state our cases and we all will have valid points. Until they settle it all out on the field no one is going to be truly happy.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 30, 2006 22:11:36 GMT -6
I hear ya JD...
And I'm an Illini tried and true...
But the bowls are speaking for themselves... Big 10 - o'fer... The SEC... undefeated... with an unranked Georgia beating #14 Virgina Tech?
O-states big wins were against a very young Texas... Freshmen at all the skill positions... and Michigan...
How good is Michigan? We don't know... there biggest victory was over overhyped ND...
Iowa... ended the season below .500...
I'm not saying the SEC is better... more so, I'm agreeing with you... the current structure does not allow for objectivity... and thats why i'm disgruntled.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Dec 30, 2006 22:20:23 GMT -6
I agree khalfie, Zook is doing a great job at Illinois. In fact, the Florida team right now is pretty much full of Zook recruits. He was in a no-win situation in that place.
BTW, slydaddy no way in the world Kentucky or South Carolina beat OSU. I hate OSU, but they are pretty dang good. They beat Texas, in Texas early in the year. They beat Michigan who was ranked #2 at the time. Yes, they almost lost to Illinois, but the last time Illinois played them that close they won the national championship against Miami.
I agree with Brophy on the assessment of the Big 10. They lose bowl games because they are not forced to play everybody. You can duck somebody each year if you are lucky. I don't know what divisions they can pull off considering it is an uneven number of teams. Another reason I think they slip up is because of sheer talent. You will see a Big 10 team like OSU this year, who has all the talent in place. Generally, though, the big 10 teams (mostly UM and OSU) seem to cycle great teams with pretty good ones. I just don't think they have the overall quality of a lot of these other perennial studs. Come on, do you want to go to Columbus, OH or Gainesville, FL? Which, makes the recruiting of Zook all that much more impressive, considering Champaign, IL is nothing to crow about.
Lastly, the weather thing. They have this stupid saying in Chicago about "Bear Weather." If it is ever cold, the Bears will win because it is Bear Weather. That is a bunch of bull, both teams play in the weather and have to deal with it. In fact, according to the Chicago radio show I just listened too, they said historically the Bears have not had a good record in cold games. A psychological difference is the only advantage. I think people just use that as an attempt to look stronger or tougher. It's just like the old adage that a running team is better in the playoffs because they play better in the cold. I went to the Illinois championship games this year and saw more spread than I have ever seen. Doesn't mean I will throw the ball, it is just stupid to assume teams will win because it is cold and they run.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 30, 2006 22:28:57 GMT -6
I don't mean to hijack the intent of the thread.....though I can think of nothing to hate CFB....maybe the BCS process, but not the institution of college football......
The Nation's top athletic football talent.....where is it coming from?
Primarily....Florida, Texas, California, and the Gulf South...... Mid west, NW Pacific, and NE Atlantic......it's sporatic.
I believe that is at least the crux of why the Big Ten hasn't fared so well (and I've been a lifelong Big ten backer).
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Dec 30, 2006 22:30:26 GMT -6
Which conference is the best is completely subjective. We have no way of knowing, we just have people who spout off that one is better than the other, because of some criteria they think justifies their choice. We can not play every team against every conference foe. It is impossible, we just have to wait and see how it plays out on the field. If OSU and Michigan win, the Big 10 is justified. I thought all year they were top-heavy. If Florida wins and USC wins, well maybe the big 10 was overrated. We will have to wait and see.
BTW, the conference standings in this bowl game is just another way to make money and get people to watch and debate. It means nothing and proves nothing.
|
|
|
Post by slydaddy on Dec 30, 2006 22:32:15 GMT -6
Great arguments guys, I am just an SEC homer. OSU is undefeated and should be in the BCS championship. The great thing is that nobody's argument on here is going to win, because we will never know unless there is some type of playoff for the championship. But I tell you guys, I get excited just hearing people sound off about college football. I think it is great, and as long as they have the BCs and bowl system in place, these arguments will take place. So I can live in my SEC dreamworld and think that the Big Ten are a bunch of momma's boys. I may get disgusted with the end results, but i can never say I hate college football.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Dec 30, 2006 22:39:48 GMT -6
The BCS does one thing well---it creates a buzz and a sense of importance to every game. You lose, you're screwed. I don't like that. It is unlike every other sport. You can't have a bad game. But, it sure does wonders for TV ratings...
|
|
|
Post by blackfly73 on Dec 31, 2006 1:32:51 GMT -6
Were the Conference Championship games brought in to get a 'true conference champion' or were they brought in to bring in cash - in the form of Tv revenue and endorsements?
Chicken/Egg arguement to me.
But I think the truth of the matter is the Big Ten does tend to play more of a ground game <b>historically </b> even though Global Warming seems to be playing havoc with that theory. Historically there have been alot of cold weather games in the Big Ten over the years - rightly or wrongly they're still based in the ground game and its a mentality.
Just to throw a wrench into the playoff works:
1) What happens if the two 'best' teams come from the same division in a conference?
Even in the SEC the schedules aren't equal - you still 'duck' someone. Does the Conf Champ and the 'runner-up' get the playoff bid or the two 'best' teams?
Either way you've still got a BCS style selection problem in WHO goes.
2) Who gets to HOST playoff games?
You've got travel considerations and plans for 'alumni' to make that happens during bowl season - would the same numbers of fans travel and shell out the bucks for say 4 straight weeks on the ROAD?
To be fair they should be placed randomly over the country OR have Conf Champs host.
So we'd see the Big Ten hosting and I can see some pretty nasty weather in late November - early December. It might be fun to see a Texas Tech for example playing in Madison Wisconsin in December. Or Florida coming into Ann Arbor in late December for a semi-final match with the Wolverines.
For example LAST year... our JV final was played in the 2nd last week of November - in a blizzard (16 inches of snow) - and we're about 20mins from Ann Arbor (which is technically NORTH of my location in Canada).
In college I played on the West Coast - and I can tell you the weather DOES make a physical & mental difference when we'd go from 55 and raining to -10 and dry as hell to play our conference playoff!
|
|
herky
Sophomore Member
Posts: 189
|
Post by herky on Dec 31, 2006 9:03:21 GMT -6
I love college football. I am definitely old school and favored the old bowl ties and could care less about a playoff system. I think comparing it to the IAA system is short sighted...but that is another soap box. In regards to the B10, having no championship game does play into the BCS. Co-champs do happen, but with the rotating schedule, it seems to balance out. Not playing OSU in 03 really didn't bother me as much as getting snagged for the Orange over the Rose Bowl. If the conference adds a team, I would rather see teams drop non conference (esp IAA) games rather than form divisions. The B10 could also add a bye week and keep the 12 games and still finish the season a week later to combat some of the talk that B10 teams have too much time between the last game and bowl games....because that's the real reason they lose.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 31, 2006 9:11:09 GMT -6
I agree with Brophy. College football is outstanding. The "ranking" and "bowl" systems of the BCS aside, there is nothing like a pure college football game.
|
|
|
Post by jdwatters on Dec 31, 2006 9:48:22 GMT -6
It makes for great discussion doesn't it khalfie? ;D
I had an opportunity to talk to one of the Oregon State Assistant coaches that sat with me at my table when I attended a dinner for the Sun Bowl game. Among the things we disscussed was the possibility of a playoff system being implemented. What was interesting was that he was a HC of a D3 program for 15 years before going to Oregon State, so he had experience with a playoff system. He told me that alot of the general consenus was that even with a playoff system they would still need the BCS to figure out rankings and such, and that a true playoff would never be possible because as he explained the D3 playoff is 5 weeks long, meaning they only had like 7 or so regular season games. He felt it would be almost impossible to make everyone happy, and that's just how its going to be.
I say what we do is focus on 3 games in particular. OSU/UF, PSU/UT, and Ark/UW. These are 3 SEC/Big 10 matchups. Best out of 3 wins bragging rights?
And..in my Michigan defense mode..they did have the #3 ranked schedule in the nation. ;D
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Dec 31, 2006 10:39:17 GMT -6
I do believe they should have a playoff system but with only 12 teams.
ZOOK is a horrible coach, he can recruit talent, Illnois will find out 2 years from now when they are 7-4 every year with Top 10 recruiting classes.
I beleive all conferences should go to a a once a year challenge, like Basketball. Big Ten vs. ACC Big 12 vs. SEC Big East vs. C-USA WAC vs. MAC
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 31, 2006 10:56:30 GMT -6
I do believe they should have a playoff system but with only 12 teams. ZOOK is a horrible coach, he can recruit talent, Illnois will find out 2 years from now when they are 7-4 every year with Top 10 recruiting classes. I beleive all conferences should go to a a once a year challenge, like Basketball. Big Ten vs. ACC Big 12 vs. SEC Big East vs. C-USA WAC vs. MAC Like all of those ideas... except the disrespect of Zook... Don't want to get off topic... but lets not forget... when zook got the gig, the cover was bare in gainsville... His first class, the class that is now fighting for a natiional championship... were freshmen when he went 7-4... 7-4 in the SEC with freshmen... and he gets fired... that's brutal! Sure, his coaching leaves a little to be desired... but the best way to get around average coaching, is superior talent... And my man Zook, knows how to get the talent... If he's able to recruit like this... when the school has a history of going 2 and 10... I'd hate to see what he could do when they make it to one of the 36 bowl games.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Dec 31, 2006 17:31:05 GMT -6
ZOOK is a horrible coach, he can recruit talent, Illnois will find out 2 years from now when they are 7-4 every year with Top 10 recruiting classes. Everybody says that kind of crap...1 stop at a school with ridiculous expectations and the guy sucks. How many championships did Spurrier win? Only 1, right? Isn't he God there. I'm not trying to attack you coach, just trying to point out that that argument is so overused. Didn't people say that about Pete Carroll? College coaches are usually in that position for a reason. If Zook fails at Illinois, if they have top 10 talent (which still won't be that way for a couple more years- the upperclassmen are pretty poor) then the argument may have some validity. If he does well, then what to say? I don't know, I get sick of hearing that garbage. I also get sort of territorial since I coached a couple of kids on the Illini squad.
|
|
Tampa
Sophomore Member
Posts: 211
|
Post by Tampa on Dec 31, 2006 18:01:20 GMT -6
Ron Zook can recognize and recruit talent. His main problem at Florida was following Spurrier.
Although having visited both, I'll take Meyer.
|
|