|
|
Post by saintrad on Nov 19, 2005 21:31:18 GMT -6
WOOOHOOO! Duckies are 10-1 and only loss was to one of the greatest college teams of all time. WOOOHOOO! BCS!BCS!BCS!
|
|
|
|
Post by boblucy on Nov 20, 2005 17:57:21 GMT -6
Unfortunately, Saint, the BCS will be around another year as Texas and USC are going to meet(its a meta-physical certainty, although UCLA could be dangerous)...In 1998, It should have been Tennessee and THE Ohio State-not FSU. In 1999, it should have been FSU and Nebraska-not Virginia Tech(in '99, VT had the 54th ranked schedule and Nebraska had the 4th ranked schedule and Nebraska beat up Texas 22-6 in Big 12 Title game to avenge their only loss)...In 2000, it should have been Oklahoma and Miami-not FSU(Each had 1 loss, but Miami won the head to head matchup with FSU and Miami gave VT their only loss of the season in 2000, FSU never gave a team its only defeat)..In 2001, the BCS got it right, Miami and Nebraska. Say what you want, but Nebraska won its first 11 games of the season by ATLEAST 10 points!!! USC of 2003, 2004 and this year cannot say that!!!!!!! In 2002, Ohio State and Miami was a no-brainer for the BCS. Both were undefeated. In 2003, USC got robbed. There were 3 1 loss teams to choose from, OU(got smashed 35-7 by KSU in Big 12 Title game), LSU(lost 19-7 to a true freshman no less, Chris Leak, IN BATON ROUGE!!!) And USC, an AWAY game in Berkley in THREE OT'S!!!! USC's 1 loss was the most respectable of them all..BCS blew that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 20, 2005 18:15:46 GMT -6
if the school presidents can ever figure out a way to make the money situation the same for all schools in D-1 (or at least the major conferences) they might be more inclined to a playoff format. However, money isn't the only road block. Despite what may be said to the public, I seriously doubt too many coaches want a playoff system. Going to a bowl game is a great help in recruiting. Right now I think there are 28 bowls (at least 25) so that's over 50 teams that will be playing in a bowl. Players want to go to schools that go to bowl games. No doubt that going 7-4 & playing a bowl game makes for much better recruiting than going 7-4 and staying home watching other teams in a playoff. Of those 50+ schools that will play in a bowl game this year, how many have a legitimate shot of winning any type of playoff format? 10? 16? It's not a tremendously high number. 16 - heck, even 25 - out of 117 D-1 schools in a playoff system would not seem to be very beneficial for those 2nd tier teams in terms of recruiting when compared to what they gain with the current system ("prestige" of a bowl, visibilty on national tv, money) These teams (comprised mostly of mid-major conferences) would be greatly affected by a playoff system. Still, this brings us back to money. Right now, the Big 12 has 8 tie-ins to bowl games. That's a lot of money to be spread among those 12 schools. In a playoff system, there is now way 8 teams (or even 4 most likely) from one conference would get in. How will this affect the money spread among the conference? How do you create the same type of revenue from sponsorship by going away from the bowl game format into a playoff format? Sure, there would be a great amount of money still to be made.......BUT.......in what ways? From whom? Would those corporations of the "lesser" bowls ante up a similar amount of money to be a bit-player in a playoff game with one of the larger sponsors? Would the major bowl sponsors put up MORE money? I feel there might be some deficit involved in the amount of sponsorship money. TV viewers may go up, but, how can stadium ticket sales go up that much? Only so many fans can attend the Rose Bowl - whether it is a bowl game or the actual championship site of a playoff. This issue is not black & white and it involves so many details that I don't think we that are not "in the know" can fully digest. The BCS does address some things and the new "Plus 1" format may help alleviate some of the guess work. In my opinion, I would love to see a playoff system. However, I think it actually hurts those teams not in the top 25 by keeping them from the post-season. Why would these schools vote for a playoff system?
|
|
|
|
Post by boblucy on Nov 20, 2005 18:32:28 GMT -6
Great points. Plus 1 would maybe eliminate the cry for a playoff altogether. It is sad that so many great college basketball stars end their careers with a LOSS in the NCAA tournament. In college football, atleast guys can win a bowl game as the last game, even if they are'nt national champs....
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Nov 20, 2005 20:27:45 GMT -6
all i care is that the Ducks are atleast getting some props finally... probably end up in the Holiday Bowl anyway which is 10 hours from here.
|
|
vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Nov 22, 2005 8:59:53 GMT -6
In 1999, it should have been FSU and Nebraska-not Virginia Tech(in '99, VT had the 54th ranked schedule and Nebraska had the 4th ranked schedule and Nebraska beat up Texas 22-6 in Big 12 Title game to avenge their only loss)...In 2000, it should have been Oklahoma and Miami-not FSU(Each had 1 loss, but Miami won the head to head matchup with FSU and Miami gave VT their only loss of the season in 2000, FSU never gave a team its only defeat)..In 2001, the BCS got it right, Miami and Nebraska. Say what you want, but Nebraska won its first 11 games of the season by ATLEAST 10 points!!! USC of 2003, 2004 and this year cannot say that!!!!!!! In 2002, Ohio State and Miami was a no-brainer for the BCS. Both were undefeated. In 2003, USC got robbed. There were 3 1 loss teams to choose from, OU(got smashed 35-7 by KSU in Big 12 Title game), LSU(lost 19-7 to a true freshman no less, Chris Leak, IN BATON ROUGE!!!) And USC, an AWAY game in Berkley in THREE OT'S!!!! USC's 1 loss was the most respectable of them all..BCS blew that one. 1999 - Virginia Tech was undefeated that year, Nebraska lost. Personally I don't want a playoff. I don't want the champion to be the best team for 2 weeks at the end. I like the fact that every game counts. For the most part when 3 one loss teams are fighting to see who gets to play my response to the one left out is so what...someone beat you so you can't claim to be the best...next time, don't lose. As for when you have 3 undefeated teams (doesn't happen often but it does)...Why is it that the "Big" teams always get a share of the title when they aren't in it but Auburn just get to say they were undefeated. All you hear is USC going for their 3rd in a row...Excuse me but I was led to believe LSU one 2 years ago..."but USC went undefeated too so they get a share"...Ok then so does Auburn. If Auburn would have complined more they would have probably gotten more votes in the other poll as we know that works. Or perhaps their HC should have just told everyone he was going to retire at the end of the year or does that only work for Tommy O at Nebraska...Everyone knows that Michigan won that year and Nebraska was given their "share". I guess what I am trying to say is be consistant. If more than 2 teams from a major conference (especially one with a championship game) go undefeated I have no problem if their is a split championship. Even the way the BCS is their would be far fewer complaints that way than their were back before the BCS. Don't give me that schedule ranking bull. Everyone thought that FSU was so wonderful b/c they played in the ACC and VT and Miami and now BC were not as good b/c they were playing in a weak conference. Well those weaklings are pretty much taking over the "stronger" ACC. With all the parity in NCAA now all of the major conferences (maybe even the Big East some day) are pretty good and if you go undefeated you are good. Early in the year people were saying Texas wasn't that good b/c their schedule was weak...Bull Spit. It takes a good team to go undefeated (can't beleive I just said Texas was good, that was tough). wethere OU and Texas Tech are down or over rated or whatever excuse...if Texas played those two teams 5 times each this year they would still have to play dang good football to go undefeated. PERIOD. Before the BCS there seemed to be a lot of years where 2 teams went undefeated but not many 3. At least now when there are 2 they get to play. Sorry for the long post but I thought if there was ever a place to post this and actually have intelligent people read this and respond intelligently with out being reactionary it was here. P.S. After re-reading I didn't want people to think I was a SEC homer or nothing. For the record I was born in Oklahoma, Have family in North East Texas, I don't hate the Big 12 (just certain teams ;D). |
|
vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Nov 22, 2005 9:06:04 GMT -6
Another quick point...People always bring up March Madness as to why Football needs a Playoff. My point is "who gives a crap about basketball until March." 64 teams is too many anyway. Make them earn a playoff spot. Make the season man something.
Besides basketball is a different beast altogether. Theoretically a team could not win a single game during the season then win their conference and then win the tournement and be Nations Champs with a record of soewhere around 8-30. Highly unlikely, but possible (only probable if a team lost all good players to injury that just happened to come back before the playoffs)
|
|
|
|
Post by boblucy on Nov 22, 2005 17:20:51 GMT -6
Now I'm in hysterics.......Nebraska was given "share" of the National Title in 1997?  ?? I have never laughed so hard. They beat #3 Tennessee 42-17 in the Orange Bowl(it wasn't that close!) and Michigan eked a 21-16 win over #7 Washington State in the Rose Bowl!!!! Lets be real....Don't let the 69-7 Nebraska JACKING of OU in 1997 cloud your mind........... |
|
vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Nov 23, 2005 7:56:06 GMT -6
Now I'm in hysterics.......Nebraska was given "share" of the National Title in 1997? ?? I have never laughed so hard. They beat #3 Tennessee 42-17 in the Orange Bowl(it wasn't that close!) and Michigan eked a 21-16 win over #7 Washington State in the Rose Bowl!!!! Lets be real....Don't let the 69-7 Nebraska JACKING of OU in 1997 cloud your mind........... I think you missed my point. I'm just saying there needs to be consistency. It's fine that Nebraska and Michigan shared the title, it's fine that LSU and USC shared the title (although I think OU shouldn't have played in Either of the last two USC&LSU and USC&Auburn last year), and it should have been fine last year to say Auburn and USC shared the title. That's all. I'm just saying the "Big" programs such as USC, OU, FSU, and (Formerly) Nebraska... were given the benefit of the doubt. Any major conference team goes undefeated they at least deserve a share(I don't buy the arguement that one major conference is that much better than any other), but one loss teams have no reason to cry. As Al Davis says..."Just win baby" P.S. Don't be so sure I am an OU fan either, just b/c I don't like Texas or Nebraska. I actually should thank Texas for building our program at VT. After they beat Nebraska and then went to the Sugar Bowl so the Hokies could beat them...that put us on the map. But I choose to not thank Texas for anything...lots of A&M blood in my family. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 23, 2005 9:13:58 GMT -6
you can't play your way into the BCS, but you can play your way out of it
|
|
vtjapes
Sophomore Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by vtjapes on Nov 23, 2005 10:07:00 GMT -6
you can't play your way into the BCS, but you can play your way out of it For the most part I would agree with that however I think Virginia Tech played themselves into the 99 championship game. But then again I guess you can say that Nebraska played themself out of it, so never mind Coach Huey that blows my arguement on that one. |
|
