12/03/24
December 29, 2007
"In a season where Oklahoma was supposed to coast into the BCS, the Big 12 provided three championship contenders and was maybe the most exciting conference in all of college football." I'm happy to see the Big 12 North do well. Maybe this season will silence those that say the Big 12 Conference is weak because the North is weak.
posted by canstusdis at 07:34 PM on December 29, 2007
Wasn't Oklahoma #2 when they lost to Texas Tech?
posted by jaygolf at 08:04 PM on December 29, 2007
"Wasn't Oklahoma #2 when they lost to Texas Tech?" jaygolf: They were ranked 3rd in the AP, USA Today, and Harris Interactive polls that week. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/polls?week=12 Interesting that this article didn't at least mention the fact that if Oklahoma had beat Texas Tech, they quite probably would be playing in the National Championship.
posted by canstusdis at 08:32 PM on December 29, 2007
i think the greatest moment in college football history could come soon, if we keep having seasons like this. maybe the bcs will finaly implode and we can have the tournament that we all deserve.
posted by elijahin at 11:52 PM on December 29, 2007
I agree. My alma mater won the Division II national championship, but if they were in the BCS, wouldn't have been in the game. They settled it on the field, as it should be.
posted by still44 at 07:29 AM on December 30, 2007
Great article. I really liked the Gundy explosion and the way they show the unbelievable upsets happening each week. I do hope this continues as it will cause the BCS to implode. My only problem with this is that Ohio State was beaten in the second to the last game on their schedule. Then for about a month, they watched team after team fall due to conference championships and upsets and end up playing for the national championship again. Unfortunately, I don't think they will fare very well against LSU. I also think that jumping from number 7 to number 2 is also out of logic. I realize that Georgia didn't win their conference, but they finished on a torrid streak that just defies how they were bumped.
posted by Mickster at 10:54 AM on December 30, 2007
mickster im with you. im a big ten guy and i think its obsurd that the big ten has the last two weeks of the season off. that ammounted to 52 days between the michigan/osu game and the championship, last year. i havent done the math this year yet, but im sure its pretty close to the same number. i think thats part of the reason why the our confrence fairs so poorly in the bowl games. too much time off turns to rust. does anyone really think that florida was really that much better than osu last year? i dont. i think an 8-16 team tournament would fit nicely into that space. it would eliminate alot of the rust. it even leaves time for the players to have finals week off. we can still have confrence championships too. just eliminate bye weeks during the season. who's with me?!
posted by elijahin at 11:22 AM on December 30, 2007
Ohio State finished earlier than other schools but those other schools had more time off between games, meaning the Buckeyes had less time to prepare and heal. Other teams have the option to schedule games similarly, this is nothing new, and choose not to match Ohio State. As a USC alum/fan I'm not happy to be squeezed out of the BCS title game, even if we didn't earn it, but you can't tell me that Ohio State should be penalized for putting themselves through a tougher calendar.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:15 PM on December 30, 2007
I love the Buckeyes, but like elijahin said, too much time elapsed from when they played last. I believe they are a much better team than the one that got skunked by Florida as well - good point. I believe they are as good as LSU talent-wise, but the longer layoff can amount to rust or at least a poor showing. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. But, to put LSU in there when they were number 7 prior to the last ranking was, well a bit rank in my opinion. As for USC, I think the loss at home to Stanford was the only reason they didn't get in instead of LSU. Is it right? Who knows. There were so many teams that could have made a case for their team being in it. It doesn't really matter at this point. But, deep down I really hope OSU puts it to LSU (I am just not very optimistic).
posted by Mickster at 03:05 PM on December 30, 2007
I was shopping for a new t.v. last night (the other died) and they were showing the Michigan/Appalachian St. game and I just had to smile - wow, what a freakin' weird football season. But I gotta say that I loved the unpreditability of it. It kept me on my toes and you just knew that who you thought would win - wouldn't. It was great. I don't mind having a playoff, but it has to be done right. I would hate to see the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry or any other be diminished.
posted by lil'red at 04:57 PM on December 30, 2007
as a michigan fan, im cool with diminishing of the rivalry if its for the greater good of the ncaa. but even at that, i dont think it will diminish anything. i think if we had a tournament, last year would have come down to a re-match of those two teams. i love rivalry week. but when those rivalries are between 1 and 2, isnt it better if they can have a re-match on a neuteral site, rather than get knocked out of contention by a 3-pt. loss on a hostile field?
posted by elijahin at 11:16 PM on December 30, 2007
does anyone really think that florida was really that much better than osu last year? i dont. It's not like the Buckeyes lost by one or two points. They got dismantled by a team that was, indeed, much better than them. It's been a long time, and Big Ten fans are still making excuses. OSU got knocked out of their jocks, plain and simple. It was a flat-out ass-kicking in all aspects of the game, except for maybe kickoff coverage. I try not to be too homerrific here, because I often call other people on it, but as a Florida alum, it annoys the crap out of me that there are still people who point to the layoff as if it were somehow worth a 27-point cushion. It wasn't, and if you can't accept that, then you're far too clouded by your allegiance to the Big Ten to discuss football rationally.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:28 AM on December 31, 2007
you're far too clouded by your allegiance to the Big Ten to discuss football rationally. first off, im a michigan fan, so i was pumping my fist and screaming for the gators as they gave the fuck-eyes the wood-shed ass-whooping they deserved. (ok honestly i was kinda rooting for a meteor to hit glendale that night, and wipe out both teams, but i digress) but osu looked like shit. they were sloppy. they couldnt catch. they couldnt throw. they couldnt block, and they couldnt tackle. that is not a sign of a team who is vastly overmatched. it is a sign of a team who hadnt played in 52 days. i lothe the existance of ohio state, so much so that i also hate new mexico and unlv, just for wearing the same colors. i hate to even think of making excuses for them, but i also know football, and to the trained, non-homeristic eye, its very easy to see that osu was rustier than my first car. note, im not saying that florida wasnt the better team. im saying they weren't that much better.
posted by elijahin at 11:19 AM on December 31, 2007
As for USC, I think the loss at home to Stanford was the only reason they didn't get in instead of LSU. Is it right? Who knows. Mickster, you mistook my alumni homerism fantasy for a real vote that USC deserved at BCS title game spot.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:04 PM on December 31, 2007
Not at all. They are just as deserving as about 4 or 5 teams. They are among the teams that were playing their best football at the end of the season. But, the same logic that held true for Georgia or Kansas not winning their conferences was that the one "major upset" by Stanford might have kept them from that game. It's all good.
posted by Mickster at 07:50 PM on December 31, 2007
as a michigan fan, im cool with diminishing of the rivalry if its for the greater good of the ncaa As an avid Michigan fan I must say I totally disagree with your statment. First of all a bracket type playoff is not going to happen (at least not anytime soon). That being said "The greater good of the NCAA" would not be to diminish storied rivalries. The UofM vs. OSU game means too much for too many people for it to be diminished. College football is not going to lose any popularity so the greater good of the NCAA be damned. I don't know how much of a Michigan fan you are and this isn't a knock on you but to even suggest that the game could or should be diminished in any way would be sacralidge in Ann Arbor.
posted by B10 at 09:23 AM on January 01, 2008
let me be clear b10: i dont think that a tournament would diminish anything. i think the rivalries would be just as important as they are now. the college basketball rivalries are still critically important (see duke/unc, indiana/kentucky, etc) maybe my saying that i would be cool with diminishing the importance was akin to saying i could kick someones ass over the internet, knowing there is very little chance ill have to prove it. i also think a tournament in football is inevitable. i think the crusty old farts at the ncaa, and the bowl commities will delay it as much as possible, but it will happen. years like this are going to become more and more common. there is no major sport that gets bitched about as much as college football for the way that its season ends. hell even nascar has found a way to create an elimination scenerio. college football is the only one in which the question of who is the best team is not answered on the field. its foolish. everyone knows it. even those who fight the idea know its for the best. they just dont want to admit it because they are afraid it will hurt their profit margine. finaly let me just say GO BLUE! BEAT TEXAS!
posted by elijahin at 11:05 AM on January 01, 2008
I wasn't aware that the Texas Longhorns recieved new uniforms that are blue and orange with an alligator on the helmet.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:47 AM on January 01, 2008
sorry never type when waking up with a hang-over. yess ying yang. i did mean to say beat florida
posted by elijahin at 12:05 PM on January 01, 2008
Which they DID. What a fantastic game.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:19 PM on January 01, 2008
i also think a tournament in football is inevitable honestly, I wouldn't bet on it. You may see a 4 team playoff at some point. Like I said in the previous post a bracket type playoff is not goint to happen. The NCAA has been pretty clear about this, the media, besides a select few, says it's not going to happen also. The fact is that the NCAA would lose money with a playoff system. Less games, less sponsors, less money. Now I've heard and seen a lot of different ideas but in the big scheme of things the bottom line would mean that the NCAA loses money. The reason it's done in DIV 1AA is becouse there isn't really any money to be made. The playoff system helps generate interest at that level. In D1 you don't need to peak interest because it's already there. The only game of note is the 1AA Championship game and that attracts what....20,000 people at most? (I'm guessing on that) The Big 10 and the Pac 10 have made it clear that they in no way shape or form want a playoff system. When you have two of the big boys putting up a road block it makes it difficult. The NCAA alone does not decide this, it it a collective vote of the conferences to agree on a compromise. Most of the major conferences will not agree on one playoff system. Like I said earlier, it's just not going to happen.
posted by B10 at 05:08 PM on January 01, 2008
b10 do you know what the highest grossing sporting event in the world is? the super bowl. but a close second is the final four. the ncaa makes a mint every first monday in april. they make as much at the final four as they do in all 4 bcs games combined (not including the title game) the ncaa would not lose money. they would make more. there are many ways to use the bowls as part of the tournament. or to have them independantly of the bracket. (the nit still makes pretty good money too.) you cant possibly compare the div. 1AA to D1. you cant possibly think that as many people would come out to support appalachan state, as would come out to support texas, or florida, or michigan (go blue). the fossils who run the ncaa, and the conferences will eventually become extinct and the newer blood will take over and make the right decision. it will probably start with four teams. then the accountants will say "wow we can make sooooooooooooooo much money at this if we expand to eight. and then to sixteen." it will happen. it is only a matter of time.
posted by elijahin at 09:32 PM on January 01, 2008
Mickster, what do you think know that USC put Illinois on the canvas? Sure they were the favorites but for me it was huge fun to watch. Ohio State visits the Coliseum to open the 2008 season, if they win Monday that will be a clash of titans.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:24 PM on January 01, 2008
you cant possibly think that as many people would come out to support appalachan state, as would come out to support texas, or florida, or michigan (go blue). No I don't, that was my point. 1AA needs a tournament to generate interest. D1 doesn't. the fossils who run the ncaa, and the conferences will eventually become extinct and the newer blood will take over and make the right decision With all do respect you're having a pipe dream. do you honestly think that this hasn't been talked aboput for years? This isn't a new subject with the NCAA and the conferences. New and old blood has came and went already, the same conclusion has came of it....no playoff. they make as much at the final four as they do in all 4 bcs games combined (not including the title game) Not including the title game? Umm, I think that's a big part of the BCS isn't it? Look from the Pionsetta bowl to the BCS title game the NCAA out grosses the Basketball tournament and that's a fact. How about the January 1st non BCS games? you didn't even count them? LOL Come on seriously. The bottom line is when the day is over that they would lose money. I don't care if the fossils who run the ncaa become extinct or not. Pocket books don't become extinct.
posted by B10 at 06:01 AM on January 02, 2008
when i said not including the title game, what i meant was the 5th game. when the title game was rotating from the fiesta, to the sugar to the rose to the orange bowls was when i got my stats, i dont know if its still true now that there is a 5th game to consider. i did not mean that the title game out grosses the final four.
posted by elijahin at 01:45 PM on January 02, 2008
I realize that and that was my point. 5 games outgross the whole tounament, what do you think all of the non bcs bowls combined make? Look, the point is from the first bowl to the last bowl, all together the NCAA Basketball tournament is outgrossed immensly by the bowl season. There not going to give up that money to install a playoff system.
posted by B10 at 02:17 PM on January 02, 2008
apparently i am not being clear. 4 bcs bowl games one of which was annually the national championship game did not gross as much as the final four. not the entire 65 team tournament. just the semifinals and championship. now that there is a 5th bowl game i dont know if my numbers are still accurate, but i do know that the tournament is what makes basketballs post season more lucrative to the ncaa than football, even though football is imencely more popular. that said, i realize i am not likely to convince you, and im ok with that. you may feel free to say i told you so every year until their is at least a four team tournament. in the meantime, i suggest that we give eachother a cyberfive for the michigan win over the gators yesterday, and agree to disagree on this stuff that we really have no say in anyway. (five)
posted by elijahin at 03:05 PM on January 02, 2008
Besides the fact that there are 5 BCS games and not 4. I will agree to disagree. Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Title Game. Yes it was a very good win over the gators. Anytime Michigan beats the SEC in a Bowl Game it's enjoyble. Did you know Mich is 23-5-1 all time against the SEC? NICE!
posted by B10 at 03:12 PM on January 02, 2008
And undefeated against Florida.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:52 PM on January 02, 2008
i did know that, i also know that there are 5 bowl games. when i got my stats, three years ago, there were only 4. the title game at that time was rotated between the bcs bowls. now it is a seperate game unto itself, but it wasnt then, that is what i have been trying to say. i hope against hope that we can agree that until last year there was no seperate game called the bcs championship game, but that the championship was either the rose bowl, the fiesta bowl, the orange bowl or the sugar bowl. are we in agreement on that? now the dollar amounts are different now because there IS a fifth game whereas before there was not. those are the statistics that i am uncertain of. on that note i leave this thread, because im too lazy to click on 3 links to find it. good night and im sure ill see you on other matters. GO BLUE!!!
posted by elijahin at 03:59 PM on January 02, 2008
Here is a list of the money each conference has recieved as a result of their team's performances in NCAA tournaments. Note that this is based on performances over a sixth year period. Interestingly, the highest payout still falls short of the payout from each individual BCS game ($17 million).
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:39 PM on January 02, 2008
"The BCS bowl games haven’t even taken place yet, and 2007 is already one of the most memorable college football seasons in history." A truer, more appropriate albeit more obvious opening sentence can hardly be written about this whacky season.