College Football

[Matt 1,049]

The coaches and harris poll all felt that Florida was the 2nd best team in the nation.

I don't believe for a second that all of those voters thought Florida was No. 2 when compared to picking head-to-head against Michigan (OSU loss notwithstanding, just comparing teams.) They didn't want a rematch. As quoted earlier in this thread, the ESPN writer asked Vanderbilt -- the common opponent -- who was the better team and there was no hesitation in their answer.

The SEC was a better conference this year than the Big Ten.

Going by the polls, sure, and a lot of Big 10 teams had down years. We'll see how good the SEC really is when January rolls around.

You make it seem like Florida didn't do anything special.

I didn't say that. I didn't see anything out of Florida the last two weeks (stumbling against Florida, backing their way to the SEC championship in a slopfest of a game and a gift from Fish) that would legitimately justify bumping Michigan from the second spot.

You can cry all you want about how Michigan only lost to OSU by 3 pts but the game shouldn't have been that close. The Buckeyes turned the ball over 3 times!

Oh, please, now you just sound like a blithering Sparty fan. Shouldn't have been that close because of turnovers? Damnit! I forgot those don't count! That game came down to Shawn Crable's braindead play on 3rd down. If that play doesn't happen, with the way the Michigan offense was playing at that stage of the game, there's no doubt in my mind that they would've won that game.

Don't give me this inane "they had 3 turnovers! ZOMG!" crap. One of the national pundits was right, America does have a pathetically short attention span.

In this year, the Michigan-Ohio State game would have been MEANINGLESS based on both teams would have made it in the top 4 in the nation regardless of who won.

And how often has Ohio State and Michigan entered their annual meeting undefeated and 1-2 in the nation? Thanks.

A 4 or 8 team playoff system would ruin it for the smaller conferences. Do you really think Boise State would be in the top 8 under a playoff system?? Boise State is going to the Fiesta Bowl well deserving of their bid, going undefeated.

They would have this year, so what exactly is your argument here?

-----

One amusing aside was ESPN's SportsNation poll. One of the questions was "Who should play Ohio State for the National Championship?" and Florida had the vote 51% to 49%. Later in the series of questions was

"Which defense will give OSU more problems?"

- Michigan: 57%

- Florida: 43%

"Which offense will give OSU more problems?"

- Michigan: 55%

- Florida: 45%

Isn't that interesting. (This was when I checked last night, there were around 220,000 votes or so.)

Despite all the bantering here, everything boils down to these points for me:

- If pollsters really didn't feel that Michigan was the No. 2 team in the nation on November 19th, they should've dropped further than No. 2.

- How many of you feel that, on a neutral site, Florida would beat Michigan? (Vegas line currently favors Michigan by a touchdown.)

- USC beats UCLA and Florida beats Arkansas your BCS top 4 is: (1) OSU, (2) USC, (3) UM, (4) UF. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

It doesnt matter...it was all for the right to lose in the National Championship...at least I like to think so.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

It doesnt matter...it was all for the right to lose in the National Championship...at least I like to think so.

I wonder why?

[Legionnaire11 0]

I think Michigan is getting hosed in this whole thing. They are definitely a better team than Florida. Only reason florida is in the game is because of all the talk about how michigan already had their chance.

Either way, the only game that matters now is MTSU v C. Michigan. I watched the MAC title game and i'm pretty much scared now, not sure if MTSU has much of a chance in this one.

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

That may be the first time I've ever heard someone say they're scared of Central Michigan.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

The thing that really pissed me off was after watching interviews of voters I reliezed that at most voters watched Michigan play ONCE this year (Nov. 18) Many didn't even watch a U-M game because they are biased of Pac 10, or southern schools. Why do they have the right to vote? Also if U-M schedule is so "weak" why doesn't if hurt OSU?

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

Tressel is catching s*** for not voting in the USA Today Coaches Poll because of a conflict of interest. Now they're saying his involvement in future polls is in question. WTF....

[Happy Pancake 6]

Tressel is catching s*** for not voting in the USA Today Coaches Poll because of a conflict of interest. Now they're saying his involvement in future polls is in question. WTF....

His involvement is in question...as in he's going to be punished? Or that he won't vote in other polls?

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

He might not be asked to vote next year.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

He might not be asked to vote next year.

That's kinda harsh. He probably should've just voted for Florida and been done with it.

[Happy Pancake 6]

Perhaps he thought Michigan was #2 but he didn't want to vote them at #2 and help facilitate a rematch?

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Perhaps he thought Michigan was #2 but he didn't want to vote them at #2 and help facilitate a rematch?

Pretty much what I feel. Path of least resistance and all that.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

Tressel is catching s*** for not voting in the USA Today Coaches Poll because of a conflict of interest. Now they're saying his involvement in future polls is in question. WTF....

I don't see whats wrong with Tressel not voting. If he votes for FLA he will get bitched at by the Big 10 (U-M in particular), and if he votes U-M no.2, and ends up playing FLA he is giving them locker room board material.

[Matt 1,049]

Also if U-M schedule is so "weak" why doesn't if hurt OSU?

I was just thinking the same thing. Tim keeps harping on Michigan not doing jack this year so, other than holding off Michigan by 3 at home on the last game of the season, OSU's other "marquee" win was beating No. 19 Texas on the road?

Let's not whine about schedule strength.

[Happy Pancake 6]

Thing that kinda bothers me is if Michigan had won, Ohio State would almost certainly have gotten a chance for a rematch.

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

I thought that too, but now I think the voters were just determined not to have a rematch if at all possible.

[Matt 1,049]

I thought that too, but now I think the voters were just determined not to have a rematch if at all possible.

Agreed. Although I think the case would've been harder for OSU to make following a loss since it would've occured at the 'Shoe.

[betterREDthandead 58]

It might, but tiebreakers would probably move NCAA football farther from controversy regardless. Teams may still get jobbed, but instead of by the subjective thoughts of our feeble human minds, we get the cold hard machine of objectivity cranking out brackets.

That's exactly why they brought the computers into the BCS equation, and then a couple years ago people were complaining that computers were deciding too much and the trained human eye for the game was being removed from the equation. So they de-emphasized the computers, which were fed a bunch of stats and cranked out rankings, and brought the polls back into it. Now this year, suddenly the human element is the problem.

I wouldn't argue with a revamping of the system used to determine the participants. But not as applied to a playoff. A single loss, as Matt said, would not bump you past the #8 spot. A second loss might not even do it. Go ahead and lose to Oregon State and UCLA, it won't affect anything.

And remember - there are five BIG MONEY bowl games and several more that also generate significant cash (Cotton, C*****l O**, C****-F**-A, Gator, Holiday, etc.) The money value of the non-BCS bowls would be severely diminished with a playoff. An 8-team playoff would only mean seven games and probably end up a net loss of money, so they would need to have at least 12 teams (11 games) to make it viable. And 12 teams means probably five to seven more that can legitimately squawk about being left out, rather than one.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

What I've learned from this weekend is I have no respect for Urban Meyer. What a jerk. He tried to pull this garbage off too when he was at Utah. I'm sure he's all for a playoff now (NOT!)

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

That's exactly why they brought the computers into the BCS equation, and then a couple years ago people were complaining that computers were deciding too much and the trained human eye for the game was being removed from the equation. So they de-emphasized the computers, which were fed a bunch of stats and cranked out rankings, and brought the polls back into it. Now this year, suddenly the human element is the problem.

Yeah, but the strength of schedule the BCS used to weigh the rankings was so ass-backward and convoluted, it made no sense at all. You get points for the team you beats record, plus the opponents of your opponents record? What the hell? What I'm talking about actually makes some sense. You can look at a spreadsheet and say, "Oh, right there. That's where they got beat."

I wouldn't argue with a revamping of the system used to determine the participants. But not as applied to a playoff. A single loss, as Matt said, would not bump you past the #8 spot. A second loss might not even do it. Go ahead and lose to Oregon State and UCLA, it won't affect anything.

Should the Colts loss to the Titans force them out of the playoff picture? I love upsets as much as anyone, but I believe in the overall record. Of course, two losses might have them lose home field advantage or something, and maybe it is a good part of the system that will go away, but you take the good with the bad.

And remember - there are five BIG MONEY bowl games and several more that also generate significant cash (Cotton, C*****l O**, C****-F**-A, Gator, Holiday, etc.)

Oh, trust me, I know what the BCS is all about. I don't know if the athletic part of it will ever grow strong enough to overthrow the corporate part of it; but that doesn't mean the BCS is better than a playoff for the fans.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

Good article on Carr

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw...o&type=lgns

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

Should the Colts loss to the Titans force them out of the playoff picture?

No, not in the NFL...but I think college football is a hundred times better than the NFL because of this. I know it gets said and its not entirely true, the regular season is a playoff of sorts...maybe a double elimination playoff. The only problem is, there is unavoidable bias in the decision of who goes where once its all over.

[Matt 1,049]

It's not like a playoff would magically "decide it on the field", because they'd still have to decide in a boardroom and on a computer chip who plays. And what's harder? Picking between Florida and Michigan for the second spot? Or picking between Arkansas, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Auburn, West Virginia, Wake Forest, Texas, and Tennessee for the final couple spots in a playoff?

It's college football, so I acknowledge that it can't be completely void of some form of polling -- but it can be fixed so the 2006 Michigans, 2004 Auburns and 2002 USCs don't get shafted. No doubt some of the teams you listed would feel jilted if we had 8-team playoff. IMO, ideally it'd be 16 teams but that doesn't seem remotely feasible.

However, more often than not it's deciding the top 4 teams that seems the most troublesome. While not perfect, it's a lot better in giving all of those top four teams a shot than denying them that. It hurts for the lower-seeded teams, but to me it's a lesser evil that a Rutgers, Texas, or Tennessee misses out rather than a Michigan or a 2004 Auburn.

And I still steadfastly don't believe it'd render regular-season results meaningless. Is there more potential "wiggleroom"? Yes.

But saying that the UM/OSU this year would've been meaningless is rather short-sighted since I don't think that potential seedings would be irrelevant for those that figure to make it in.

I never said a college football playoff would be infallible, but it most certainly would be the absolute closest thing to crowning a true national champion than anything that's been used previously.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

No, not in the NFL...but I think college football is a hundred times better than the NFL because of this. I know it gets said and its not entirely true, the regular season is a playoff of sorts...maybe a double elimination playoff. The only problem is, there is unavoidable bias in the decision of who goes where once its all over.

I guess it comes down to what you value more: the "can't lose" mentality of the college football as a whole, or finding a way to declare a true national champion. I know where my allegiance falls, but I can see the appeal of the other side.

[Matt 1,049]

And remember - there are five BIG MONEY bowl games and several more that also generate significant cash (Cotton, C*****l O**, C****-F**-A, Gator, Holiday, etc.) The money value of the non-BCS bowls would be severely diminished with a playoff.

The way the BCS is currently set doesn't seem to have the NCAA bleeding money, so how would it dramatically affect them in a playoff? The Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Suger aren't going to crown a national champion. Why not "promote" two of those bowls (say, the Cotton and Citrus) to the "quarterfinals" and rotate the semis among those bowls on a year-to-year basis. For example:

Fiesta Bowl

(1) Ohio State - 42

(8) Boise State - 17

Citrus

(2) Florida - 37

(7) Wisconsin - 21

Orange Bowl

(3) Michigan - 38

(6) Louisville - 13

Cotton Bowl

(4) LSU - 24

(5) USC - 27

Re-seed after this round (if needed), then your semis would be:

Sugar Bowl

(1) Ohio State

(5) USC

Rose Bowl

(2) Florida

(3) Michigan

Then the NC game a week after that...