12/21/24
January 08, 2008
Home sweet home: LSU tops OSU in BCS Championship : LSU rolled to a 38-24 win over the Ohio State Buckeyes to claim its second national title in five seasons.
I couldn't get excited about this game because the teams brought so many losses into the bowl season. As good as LSU is, I don't think a two-loss team can make a solid claim to the national championship in college football. They win it primarily because so many other teams choked in the clutch, not because they set themselves above the rest through the quality of their play. It's weird that Kansas didn't get higher than seventh after their bowl win and a one-loss season. I know it's pointless to say this, but it's a crying shame we can't get a playoff. An eight-team college football playoff would become one of the most-watched and most-loved spectacles in sports.
posted by rcade at 09:05 AM on January 08, 2008
well they are talking about a "plus-one". its not an eight team tournament, but its a start. at least now four teams have a shot at the title (if they go with it) starting in 2010. i think the ncaa has almost forced its own hand. by limiting scholorships to create parody, they have all but assured that this season will not be the annomyle. a few more like this and they will have no choice but to create a tournament system.
posted by elijahin at 09:54 AM on January 08, 2008
I wouldn't say the game was an utter blowout. OSU looked poised to get some momentum at the beginning of the second half (and only down by 2 scores) with that nice 3 and out until the bonehead roughing the kicker play. OSU hurt itself way too much with 15-yd penalties resulting in first downs LSU shouldn't have had. An eight-team college football playoff would become one of the most-watched and most-loved spectacles in sports. I 100% agree. With a number of top teams having "claims" to the nat'l championship, it could have been an unbelievable 3 weeks of playoffs. Hm, maybe it's their plan? Build up so much hype and demand for a playoffs that it is welcomed with so much fanfare resulting in it being the most-watched thing ever!
posted by jmd82 at 10:03 AM on January 08, 2008
Oh, and not that it's going to happen before a "plus-one" system, I found this article about the current state of the BCS from UGA president Michael Adams entertaining.
posted by jmd82 at 10:09 AM on January 08, 2008
Congrats to the Bayou Bengals! The victory is win-win for Northeastern Ohio since Les Miles (Elyria) and Bo Pelini (Youngstown) piloted the national champions to victory. While Miles matriculated to the dreaded team up north, Pelini was a captain at OSU and should never have been allowed to leave the state. Two straight disappointing defensive years in the "big one" shows that Jim Tressell and the OSU brass better re-think their philosophies. As far as a playoff for the national champ? Have one and college pigskin fans won't have anything to argue about until next August or so! Now the various blogs and boards will abound with GA and USC and to a lesser extent KA fans complaining about their teams never having the chance to keep the LSU offense in check.
posted by tbocce at 10:16 AM on January 08, 2008
it's a crying shame we can't get a playof That's what Georgia President Michael Adams said.
posted by yerfatma at 11:26 AM on January 08, 2008
An eight-team college football playoff would become one of the most-watched and most-loved spectacles in sports. Such a system would invariably propel, a two-loss team ... to the national championship in college football. And we would find ourselves here, again, arguing about the seeding system, home-field advantage, or the #9 team that 'got screwed'. Also, I would like to point out we already have an 8 team battle royal to decide the national championship, sorta. It's called: The SEC Regular Season.
posted by r8rh8r27 at 11:38 AM on January 08, 2008
Second year in a row that OSU gets busted up by an SEC team for the National Championship. Perhaps the Big Ten should pick another sacrificial lamb.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:40 AM on January 08, 2008
Any playoff would probably have to be 8 teams at a minimum. Look at the final (pre-bowl) BCS rankings -- it's arguable that teams 3 and 4 (OU and VT) didn't belong, at least based on their bowl showings. A four team playoff would have left out the two teams who clearly belong right behind LSU (and who could well beat LSU head-to-head), USC and Georgia. On the whole, good performance by LSU, who finally were really healthy for the first time since the first couple of weeks of the season. I'd just as soon not see Ohio State (or any Big 10 team, for that matter) in the title game next year.
posted by holden at 11:42 AM on January 08, 2008
As far as a playoff for the national champ? Have one and college pigskin fans won't have anything to argue about until next August or so! Oh please, we can still find plenty bitch about. Even so, Instead of arguing about controversy and the need for a playoff and team x and y got stiffed, we can be talking about how great the playoffs were and how team z maybe got stiffed from the playoffs. I'd rather go for the later. For playoffs, I'd be a fan of taking 6 champions from the BCS conferences at 2 at-larges.
posted by jmd82 at 11:46 AM on January 08, 2008
It is becoming rather obvious that momentum is building for a playoff system of some type. I prefer a 16 team format that starts one week after the college season ends and have the first week of games played on the campuses of the higher ranked team in the game. The second round can ultilize several of the BCS bowls on a rotating basis and maybe one or two "minor" bowls. The third round (semis) would ultilize the BCS bowls chosen for the semi games, minus maybe the Rose Bowl (the Big 10 and PAC 10 do not want a playoff system and want to keep the Rose Bowl) on a rotating basis. The format would feature a one week break for Christmas and would conclude no later than the current system concludes. A sixteen playoff would leave little room for argument (except from the PAC 10, Big 10 crowd), it is doubful the the sixteenth seeded team will take down number 1 in their game, so arguments about whether another team should have been sixteenth seed would be silly, same goes for the fifteenth, thirteenth and twelth seeds. After several years of being left our of the title picture and having to yell that they deserve the National Championship from the sidelines, the Pac 10 and Big 10 will come to their senses and join in, until then, the implication that the UGA president made of "to hell" with them would suffice.
posted by Cave_Man at 12:13 PM on January 08, 2008
It's weird that Kansas didn't get higher than seventh after their bowl win and a one-loss season. Yeah, that kind of bothers me too. Trying to put my fanhood aside, i'm not sure how we are beneath a two loss Ohio state team who beat no one of consequence to my knowledge (unless you count michigan, which i am reluctant to do), and West Virginia. Georgia, Missouri, i can understand. Oh well, it is hard to be too upset, since the Hawks have had their most successful season in 100 years. Maybe i'll just nejoy us not completely sucking at football for a while.
posted by brainofdtrain at 12:37 PM on January 08, 2008
That's what Georgia President Michael Adams said. Michael Adams rules! I'd prefer a 16 team playoff but I'd settle for 8 teams. The BCS plus one nonsense is more BCS BS. Who would you pick to play LSU? USC? Georgia? Kansas? West Virginia? You're right back where you started from. The reason that the push for playoffs might finally get some traction is that the BCS has committed the cardinal sin. It's become BORING! Georgia vs. Hawaii. USC vs. Illinois? These are the best matchups the BCS can muster? And waiting until January 7th to watch Ohio State get blown out again? The game started at 5:15 PM out west. By the time I could sit down and watch it, it was already 24-10. Talk about anti-climactic. I realize the East Coast doesn't want to stay up to midnight to watch the game but if it's gonna be at 5 PM, at least schedule it for the weekend. But they can't do that because it conflicts with the NFL playoffs. Hey, here's a novel idea! Play the game on New Year's Day! And watching the game on Fox is an exercise in masochism. I'd rather mute it and invite someone to come to my house with a bullhorn and yell "FOX" in my ears every five seconds. "JUMPER?" Jump this, assholes. Having the "best" regular season in sports is irrelevant if your post season is broken. (No offense to LSU. They deserved to be there as much as anyone and won convincingly). I just hope the idiots running college football now live long enough to see what a massive public and commercial success the college football playoff tournament becomes. No doubt they'll be hanging out with the guy that turned down the Beatles because "guitar bands are over."
posted by cjets at 01:11 PM on January 08, 2008
Michael Adams rules! I'd prefer a 16 team playoff but I'd settle for 8 teams. I think this is especially significant coming from Adams considering that his conference (the SEC) is one of the members of the cartel that is the BCS that benefits most from it. Georgia vs. Hawaii. USC vs. Illinois? These are the best matchups the BCS can muster? Georgia v. Hawaii is on the BCS, as the BCS let the smaller conferences get in if certain criteria are met. Boise State gave us a great game the year before and Hawaii a stinker this year. USC v. Illinois, on the other hand, is wholly on the Rose Bowl selection committee. They wanted to preserve the traditional Big 10-Pac 10 match-up and they got what they deserved. How great would Georgia-USC have been?
posted by holden at 01:36 PM on January 08, 2008
Something has got to change. Ohio State should not have been there in the title game this year and I'm saying that as a Buckeye fan. I knew that they were not ready and I was praying that they wouldn't go. LSU won, but I'm still not convinced that they should have been there either. And cjets is right the BCS game has become boring. I hate the fact that is almost a week later than the other bcs bowl games and on a freakin' Monday night. I hate the fact that it was on FOX and I was going to scream if they did the "jumper" replay thing again. Can someone please fix this freakin' problem? Please?
posted by lil'red at 01:41 PM on January 08, 2008
USC v. Illinois, on the other hand, is wholly on the Rose Bowl selection committee. To me, the BCS is shorthand for the Rose Bowl Selection committee (all Bowl Selection committees), the college presidents (with the exception of Michael Adams) boosters and anyone else who supports the cock-up that is the College Football post season. How great would Georgia-USC have been? Exactly.
posted by cjets at 01:57 PM on January 08, 2008
Let's face it. Georgia got the screwing of a lifetime. They were # 4 when # 1 and # 2 lost on the same night. Ohio State ( # 3 ) moves to # 1 and Georgia ( # 4 ) goes to # 5? Are you kidding me? Don't give me the "They didn't win their conference" arguement. They were voted there and everyone knew they didn't win the conference. Then Ohio State ( # 1 ), Va Tech ( # 3 ), and Oklahoma ( # 4 ) get beat and USC jumps from # 6 to # 2, leaving Georgia 3rd in the Coaches Poll. Georgia beats a higher ranked team than USC in the Bowl Game and this is the reward they get? It is way past time for a playoff.
posted by dbt302 at 02:02 PM on January 08, 2008
I would like to point out that since the creation of the BCS the Big Ten is 14-13 against SEC teams, which includes Ohio State's outstanding 0-4 record in bowl games when playing a SEC opponent.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:24 PM on January 08, 2008
I was quite surprised that LSU put up 38. I still think Les Miles isn't a very good coach, but that was, by far, the best I've seen LSU look all year. I thought OSU would push them around but it didn't happen, so congratulations to them.
posted by chmurray at 02:55 PM on January 08, 2008
I agree with cjets that a one plus one BCS game would be a bad move. They keep fixing the BCS with tweak after tweak and it never gets any better. The other football divisions have a 16 team playoff system and they get a winner every time. The old excuse was that the players were student-athletics and a playoff system would take them out of the classroom. This was being said when the teams had a 10 game regular season. Years later, a 12 game regular season, a conference championship for some and a bowl game. LSU played 14 games as did Florida, Vir Tech, Boston College, Oklahoma, Missouri, Conference USA teams. Reduce the regular season and have the bowl sites host the playoff games. Win-Win for all. If the PAC 10 and Big 10 do not agree, let them play with themselves. The rest of the world gets playoff games and a true national champ and as a couple of posts stated, Maybe nomore "JUMPER" ads.
posted by RA at 03:17 PM on January 08, 2008
dbt302: I'm a UGA alum and can die a happy man when I finally see my Dawgs win the nat'l championship (I'm banking on next year and/or 09 if Moreno and Stafford stays healthy), but they didn't win their conference this year. They didn't win their conference or the SEC title. Maybe they do deserve to be ranked over USC, but not in the title game. What were you going to do- put them in over LSU or have an all-SEC BCS game? The old excuse was that the players were student-athletics and a playoff system would take them out of the classroom. Just start the playoffs right after the regular season instead of waiting a month afterwards. Other student-athletes travel as much if not more than football students.
posted by jmd82 at 03:25 PM on January 08, 2008
Let's face it. Georgia got the screwing of a lifetime And Missouri didn't get a screw job . Look I feel that LSU was the better team last night and probably should get the #1 spot, but I'm for some sort of playoff system, because if Georgia got screwed, Missouri got eviserated. Missouri did not lose to any unranked teams all year. Name one team ahead of Missouri in the final polls that can say that. Basing the ranking on the bowl games without a playoff system is ridiculous.
posted by Nakeman at 03:30 PM on January 08, 2008
My biggest issues are that I don't think LSU is the best team in the country. I didn't think they were the best team in the SEC. They were the best team in the stadium last night, most definately. But, I would say that I agree that there are four or five others that could say the same - I thought USC looked better than LSU (by far), and that Georgia got hosed but good. Kansas was hosed even better. I even believe that Missouri would have beaten LSU. And, the WVU could also make a claim. This is why I think the whole process stinks. You have your March Madness to settle (on the court) which team is the best. Not simply which team didn't loose a game in "regulation" as Les put it. Just because they lost in overtime instead of regulation shouldn't make any difference at all - a loss is a loss. Let the games be settled on the field of play and not by people that choose the team they think is the best. There were several teams that could have won the "tourney" if one were to be played. I will watch the regular season, but the bowls they fight so hard to protect - probably won't watch many of them anymore.
posted by Mickster at 03:56 PM on January 08, 2008
Just a couple of comments: 1) No replay of the late hit for 15 yards because there really wasn't one (good grief this is football and everyone wears protective equiptment). 2) LSU's "home away from home". This is more important in the college and high school games than in pro sports. I know no-one would have wanted to play at Columbus in the Horseshoe, but that would have made the field a little closer to being equal. Hate to say this but for one night I was wishing that the "school down south" would win the game. GO BLUE!!!!!
posted by coach at 04:07 PM on January 08, 2008
Mickster- Boy, would I like to be a fly on the wall when these picks are made. The political wrangling and manure that goes on behind closed doors for these picks, must have the delegates wearing some really high top boots, and clothes pins on their noses.
posted by Nakeman at 04:10 PM on January 08, 2008
but (Georgia) didn't win their conference this year. They didn't win their conference or the SEC title. Maybe they do deserve to be ranked over USC, but not in the title game. What were you going to do- put them in over LSU or have an all-SEC BCS game? Thanks, jmd82. It's nice when an alum and fan of a program can actually be the one to ask people to look at things realistically. Georgia is a really good team, they play in a tough conference, but they didn't do what was necessary to deserve to be in the championship game this year. Unless a team from a tough conference goes unbeaten and dominates in the national championship game, division 1 college football will always be flawed when it comes to crowning a champ. This season just happened to be worse in that regard due to so many top teams getting knocked off at inopportune times.
posted by dyams at 04:50 PM on January 08, 2008
Maybe they do deserve to be ranked over USC, but not in the title game. What were you going to do- put them in over LSU or have an all-SEC BCS game? The BCS Poll before the final week of the season looked like this jmd82: 1. Missouri 11-1 2. West Virginia 10-1 3. Ohio State 11-1 4. Georgia 10-2 5. Kansas 11-1 6. Virginia Tech 10-2 7. LSU 10-2 8. USC 9-2 9. Oklahoma 10-2 10. Florida 9-3 Based on the fact # 1 and 2 lost, Georgia had every right to move to # 2. LSU jumped 5 spots to # 2 and Oklahoma jumped 5 spots to # 4. Va Tech jumped 3 to # 3. The rule has always been, if you lose a game later in the year, the more you get hurt from it in the polls. Georgia won 7 straight while others lost and moved to # 4. It didn't matter that they didn't win their conference then. Don't penalize them after the fact. As far as USC goes... They lost to 42 point underdog Stanford. They lost after Georgia did and should have been behind them in the poll and still should be. It should have been Georgia kicking Ohio State last night.
posted by dbt302 at 04:52 PM on January 08, 2008
The rule has always been, if you lose a game later in the year, the more you get hurt from it in the polls. What rule, tell me the rule (written down and accepted by the BCS board), that says a late loss hurts your chances in position of rankings. Tell me where I purchase this rule book? Don't waste space on this thread- email me.
posted by Nakeman at 05:05 PM on January 08, 2008
There were several teams that could have won the "tourney" if one were to be played. I will watch the regular season, but the bowls they fight so hard to protect - probably won't watch many of them anymore. I did not watch any bowl games or the National Championship game this year (or last year) and do not plan on watching again until a well thought out playoff system is implemented. NCAA football officials and bowl people are tone deaf and the only thing that will wake them up is people stop watching the inadequate postseason offerings that they present. NCAA officials need to get off their A** and implement a playoff system, and tell the PAC 10 and Big 10 that they cannot claim a National Championship if they insist on holding out.
posted by Cave_Man at 05:07 PM on January 08, 2008
Second year in a row that OSU gets busted up by an SEC team for the National Championship. Perhaps the Big Ten should pick another sacrificial lamb. Got a laugh out of that one, thanks TBH The reason that the push for playoffs might finally get some traction is that the BCS has committed the cardinal sin. It's become BORING! And waiting until January 7th to watch Ohio State get blown out again? The game started at 5:15 PM out west. By the time I could sit down and watch it, it was already 24-10. Talk about anti-climactic. I couldnt agree more cjets. If LSU (or any other SEC team) were not in that game I doubt I would have watched it at all. I like the playoff ideas, thing is how do you get all the coorporate sponcers that have their names plastered all over every bowl on board? "The Dr. Pepper #1 v #8 game of the week"? Its all about the money for the cities that host games as well as the schools playing in them. Who watched the GMAC bowl last saturday? Well it still brought over 3 million to the city of Mobile AL.
posted by Folkways at 05:19 PM on January 08, 2008
Two points I would like to, well, point out: 1. How can the NCAA argue against a 16-team football playoff when every other division of the same sport successfully undertakes a 16-team playoff? The model is in place and it's their model. Conferences with championships should have their teams limited to 11 regular season games. Therefore, 2 teams would play 15 or 16 games, 4 would play 14 or 15, every other team would play no more than under the current system. Side note - if they still want a gazillion bowls, let the non-playoff teams continue to bowl away. Those bowls surely cannot be any less meaningful than they currently are. 2. LSU beat the #1, #3, #12, #16, & #23 ranked teams in the BCS poll(12/2/07); #6, #10, #11, #13, & #14 in the final Coaches poll, and #5, #9, #12, #13, & #15 in the final AP. The 2 teams they lost to, both in triple O/T, received Coaches & AP votes and were bowl participants. I'm not sure if any of the other reasonable candidates for the championship game can claim a similar resume for the season. I don't have the time to compile the same statistics for each of the other candidate teams, but it would be interesting to see what those results are.
posted by manics21 at 05:59 PM on January 08, 2008
Well, first of all the Big 10 and Pac 10 need to anty up and have conference championships like the SEC, Big 12, etc... If the excuse is they don't have enough teams, they can expand their respective conferences like the Big 8 did to get caught up with the SEC as far as the revenue generated. Also, all of the Bowl games seem to favor the Southern schools. You have the Sugar Bowl (LA & SEC schools), and the Orange Bowl (FL teams & SEC schools that border it), the Rose Bowl (USC, UCLA, and other west coast teams), then the Fiesta Bowl which is of no relevance towards anything but sponsors. Why not the Cotton Bowl? Why not have a game in the snow or in colder environments. I sat and watched the commentators (Herbstreet, Corso) make their predictions for next year and it is the same as always. USC, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, OU as top 5 for next season. Corso had different order but pretty much the same teams. The big dilemma now is the plus 1 system that is being devised by the BCS. I guess they are hearing the public loud and clear. But, you do have schools playing in their backyards basically and that is a HUGE advantage at this level. Most of the bowls are irrelevant and not many people will watch anymore. I probably watched three games the entire Bowl season and turned off the USC drubbing of Illinois early, same for the stomping Georgia was putting to Hawaii.
posted by Mickster at 06:01 PM on January 08, 2008
As good as LSU is, I don't think a two-loss team can make a solid claim to the national championship in college football. All the other teams had 2 losses too (except for Kansas and Hawaii and most feel that if either of them played the games LSU/USC/Georgia played they'd have 4 or 5 losses). So if you have this 2 loss rule, it should automatically go to Kansas or Hawaii? Even though everyone knows they aren't the best teams? I know it's pointless to say this, but it's a crying shame we can't get a playoff. Count me as one who disagrees. I think the current system is designed to put the 2 best teams against each other and it usually does that. People always clamoring about Boise and Hawaii just aren't realistic. At the end of the season, if you looked objectionably as to who should be playing for the title, LSU and OSU seemed the 2 most qualified for that right. As for a playoff, why did we need one? The last 7 or 8 weeks were like the playoffs! #2 teams losing like 5 or 6 weeks in a row, teams jumping up, going down, jumping up, going down. Every week was exciting this year and it culminated in the 2 best teams playing for the title. This year, more than any other year, it seems to be an argument as to how well the current system is working!
posted by bdaddy at 09:27 PM on January 08, 2008
Second year in a row that OSU gets busted up by an SEC team for the National Championship. Perhaps the Big Ten should pick another sacrificial lamb. as a big ten guy, i couldnt agree with you more. give coach rod a year or two, and we'll get you some competition. michigan has an excellent record against the mason-dixon conference in the post season.
posted by elijahin at 10:36 PM on January 08, 2008
The BCS Poll before the final week of the season looked like this jmd82: Trust me- I was watching those polls as much as anyone else. I was hoping UGA would go to #2, but wasn't surprised. I don't see it as a matter of UGA being penalized- it was a matter of the other teams being rewarded for winning their conference/championship. I think all of the BCS conferences should have a conference championship to decide their playoff contender, but whatever. Also, I think you have to look at the entire season's work and you cannot discount and entire season's work. UGA lied a giant f'in egg against UT and should have beat USC, while LSU...well, manics21 covered that. All this's to say why the current system is BS. There are arguments to make for each team. Every week was exciting this year and it culminated in the 2 best teams playing for the title. Clearly, other people think otherwise. I don't think the two best teams played- rather I think the two teams who deserve to play under the current system played. And, the last 7-8 weeks were most definitely not the playoffs. I bloody hate that arguments. If they were, it would have been UGA-USC in the championship game, and certainly not LSU or OSU as they had later-season losses than either team.
posted by jmd82 at 10:56 PM on January 08, 2008
michigan has an excellent record against the mason-dixon conference in the post season They took care of Florida handily. I did not watch the game, but news accounts indicate that Michigan dominated. Florida is a young team, but they did give LSU all it could handle. If Michigan brings back most of the core that it had this year, it may not need 2-3 years to be in the National Championship game.
posted by Cave_Man at 11:17 PM on January 08, 2008
SEC fans: Take a look at this. Bowl Subdivision Polls Looks like the Big 12 has 4 teams in the top 10. Funny how SEC fans always want to compare their conference to the Big 10, or the Pac 10, or the ACC, or the Big East...
posted by canstusdis at 11:21 PM on January 08, 2008
The arguement for a team to play at OSU gets destroyed by the loss to the ILL. Easily the best game would have been LSU-USC. Georgia-OSU would have been a good match-up for third and forth place. OMG who the hell did kansas or missou play to warrent any discussion of top five. A top four playoff is all that is needed. That would keep the bowls happy.
posted by whodat at 01:41 AM on January 09, 2008
Funny how SEC fans always want to compare their conference to the Big 10, or the Pac 10, or the ACC, or the Big East... Actually, all I did was compare the SEC to the Big Ten as it applied to OSU getting the beatdown again this year in the big game. Looks like the Big 12 has 4 teams in the top 10. Keep on extrapolating said data, and you'll see that the Big 12 does indeed have four of the top 10, and not another team in the top 20. The SEC, meanwhile, has two of the top three teams, and five teams overall in the top 20. I don't know if those numbers are necessarily the "NUFF SAID" you were looking for.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:01 AM on January 09, 2008
SEC, Big 12, both conferences are solid and have something that the Pac 10 and the Big 10 don't - a conference championship. That does settle the score on the field of which teams represent their conference in the BCS games by AUTOMATIC spots. This extends their seasons and also puts extra waiting time in for teams like OSU, Michigan or other Big 10 - Pac 10 schools. They could schedule later or skip a bye week altogether, but after 45 days or so, is is like playing a new season. I believe the system has it's flaws of course. But, every conference should have to play for a conference championship and earn their spot to the BCS. It was created by the SEC, and it gives additional revenue to the schools (all 12) and they can upgrade facilities, renovations and that leads to better recruiting. I believe the above posts will support this as the Big 12 had 4 teams in the top 10 and the SEC has 5 in the top 20. This system works to their advantage even playing in the current system.
posted by Mickster at 07:58 AM on January 09, 2008
The SEC, meanwhile, has two of the top three teams, and five teams overall in the top 20. I don't know if those numbers are necessarily the "NUFF SAID" you were looking for. Dammit TBH you beat me to the punch once again. I'll compare the SEC with any confrence in any sport. Not that the SEC is the best confrence in all sports but it sure is fun (to me) to see how my fan base stands up against the rest of the nation. What we really need is the old SWC back.
posted by Folkways at 08:09 AM on January 09, 2008
I'll compare the SEC with any confrence in any sport. Hockey and Lacrosse!
posted by jmd82 at 08:22 AM on January 09, 2008
The Sagarin ratings have the BCS conferences ranked as follows at the end of the season: SEC Pac-10 Big 12 Big East ACC Big Ten This is not to say that those ratings are the be all, end all, but it does perhaps provide a different perspective than just counting the number of teams each conference has in the top-10, top-25, etc. In terms of the Pac-10 and Big Ten adding teams, where do the teams come from for the Pac-10? (It's obviously easier for the Big Ten in that they only need one team.) One thing I have always loved about the Pac-10 is the wonderful symmetry of 2 Arizona teams, 2 LA teams, 2 Bay Area teams, 2 Oregon teams and 2 Washington teams. I also love that every team in the conference plays every other team each year.
posted by holden at 08:39 AM on January 09, 2008
It's time for a rhetorical question or 2: Does or does not the NCAA govern colloege athletics? If the answer is that it does, then why can the NCAA not set up a playoff system? The answer most give is that some of the major conferences will not cooperate. If the NCAA is indeed the governing body, it may simply tell the reluctant conferences that their ranked teams will be invited to the tournament, but if they don't wish to participate, they will be replaced by the next teams lower in the rankings. And oh by the way, if your team chooses not to participate, don't expect to receive invitations to the NCAA basketball tournament, hockey tournament, water polo championships, etc. This will prove one of 2 things. Either the NCAA will succeed, in which case they truly govern college athletics, or the NCAA will cave in, proving that the whole thing is nothing more than a sham intended to maximize the profit for the colleges, bowl committees, and NCAA governors. Of course, it will never happen. One or both of the emperors has no clothes on, and neither wants anyone to figure that out.
posted by Howard_T at 08:54 AM on January 09, 2008
I agree with bdaddy. College football is so exciting because every single game matters, and winning well matters as well. It makes each game crucial. I like the BCS so much better than the AP awarding the championship. Plus, I don't think there is any possible playoff system in football where an arguably great team is not left out. And, any system that takes away home games to make room for corporate sponsored games stinks. On other matters, it was tacky of Georgia to bring this up now. And, the jumper thing on Fox was so ridiculous. Who thinks up this shit?
posted by bperk at 09:25 AM on January 09, 2008
On other matters, it was tacky of Georgia to bring this up now. UF has brought the same issues. Even when they won nat'l championship. every single game matters No, it doesn't. See: OSU v. Illinois. LSU v. Kentucky. Plus, I don't think there is any possible playoff system in football where an arguably great team is not left out. 16-team playoff and I don't think that argument holds any weight.
posted by jmd82 at 09:45 AM on January 09, 2008
SEC, Big 12, both conferences are solid and have something that the Pac 10 and the Big 10 don't - a conference championship. That does settle the score on the field of which teams represent their conference in the BCS games by AUTOMATIC spots. I agree that both conferences are better than the Big 10 this year. I'm not sure about the Pac 10--they were also very good. As for conference championships, I agree that there needs to be uniformity in that either all conferences need to have them or none should, but I would rather see them done away with. Playing regular season games is every bit as good at "settling the score on the field." Furthermore, it is often the case that teams play each other in conference championship games who have already met in the regular season. This is both unneccessary and unfair to the team that already won. every single game matters. No, it doesn't. See: OSU v. Illinois. LSU v. Kentucky. The fact that other unexpected upsets happened and that those two teams still made the championship game does not prove that those games didn't matter. In fact, it shows just how important every game is.
posted by bender at 10:38 AM on January 09, 2008
In terms of the Pac-10 and Big Ten adding teams, where do the teams come from for the Pac-10? (It's obviously easier for the Big Ten in that they only need one team.) Two logical additions to the PAC 10 would be Boise State and Hawaii.
posted by Cave_Man at 12:02 PM on January 09, 2008
I skipped a lot of posts, having anticipated and understood the general gist of them. The rankings, people. Post-season, pre-season, mid-season...who cares? It's all a four-month fix. The plus-one garbage is just more tweaking by the 15-20 teams who actually have a shot in the present system. A playoff, you say? Great. But it's still set up so that the 25 teams that people just KNOW are going to be good in July get a humongous head start, and the Kansases, Hawai'is, Boises, etc...of the world have to claw their way up and hope someone notices in time to escape the San Diego Federal Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl. The preseason rankings are an eternal injustice to at least 50 teams a year. There shouldn't be rankings until at least a month into the season. Don't base it on conjecture, speculation, and last season's results. Base it on how they're actually doing. Then, and only then, will we be making progress. Until this happens, I'm making this subjective creature as subjective as it gets. The games are going to be played anyway, so I'll just decide what I think is important, and the omniscient national media can say whatever it wants. And for the love of everything, it's parity, not parody...although, that kind of makes sense, too.
posted by newbie1412 at 12:26 PM on January 09, 2008
It's nice to see the the well thought out opinions of others and they do make good points. Yet no matter how you slice it someone will be left out in the cold. Unfortunately it will all come down to money so forget the polls and the voters from the AP. If any one should rank teams let it be the book makers in Las Vegas do it. They can't do any worse.
posted by DHOSTILE1 at 01:46 PM on January 09, 2008
But it's still set up so that the 25 teams that people just KNOW are going to be good in July get a humongous head start, and the Kansases, Hawai'is, Boises, etc...of the world have to claw their way up and hope someone notices in time to escape the San Diego Federal Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl. It's a good point. But if you have a 16 team playoff, I think it's much less of an issue. Kansas Missouri and Hawaii were all in the top sixteen this year. Also, a 16 team playoff could have automatic byes for all conference winners. If you can't win your conference or impress enough people to finish in the top 16, then you probably don't deserve to be in the playoffs. As for conference championships, I agree that there needs to be uniformity in that either all conferences need to have them or none should, but I would rather see them done away with. Agreed. One of the main arguments against a playoff seems to be that a playoff would mean that college athletes are playing too many games. If this is the case, why not drop the conference championship game?
posted by cjets at 03:28 PM on January 09, 2008
Agreed. One of the main arguments against a playoff seems to be that a playoff would mean that college athletes are playing too many games. If this is the case, why not drop the conference championship game? Or drop a game from the regular season. A playoff system always mean that the last two teams standing will have played at least one game more than anyone else. The current system is outrageous, where OU sat out about 45 days and LSU more than 30 days before they played. I find it hard to believe that either team gave their "student athletes" more than one week off during that period. A well devised playoff system would give players Christmas week off and have all games completed by the end of New Year's Day.
posted by Cave_Man at 03:57 PM on January 09, 2008
Well, if all of the high schools can do it across the country, and the other Sub Division college teams (or whatever they are called now - NAIA, etc...) can have playoffs, why couldn't the major colleges? It is done in every level of football in the U.S. except for the Div. 1 schools who seem to want to hold on to the rich tradition of bowl games. It is the almighty dollar that is sponsoring the San Diego Federal Credit Union Poinsettia Bowls and others like it. It is all about the GREED of big time athletics that make millions on the players and teams and yet can't give a kid enough money (say a stipend) to go home for the holidays.
posted by Mickster at 09:30 PM on January 09, 2008
The rankings, people. Post-season, pre-season, mid-season...who cares? You're right, newbie. I just get tired of the "...my team sucks but they play in the best conference in the universe so I don't feel so bad about them getting their ass kicked by Louisiana-Monroe..." crap. Parity is coming. With the fall of Nebraska and Miami, and the rise of Boise State and Kansas, it's here and you'd better get used to it.
posted by canstusdis at 07:51 PM on January 11, 2008
I think what is lost in all this Buckeye bashing is that this was supposed to be a rebuilding year for them. They thought they had a core of good young talent, one that would make them a great team in the next two years, and I think that is still the case. I don't think Tressel or anyone else thought they would beat the likes of Wisconsin and Michigan this year, let alone win the Big Ten, and they certainly wouldn't be making an appearance in the title game. Most of us Bucks fan never even entertained the thought that they were the best team in the country this year. However, when the season played out the way it did, there they were with one loss. Should Tressel and the AD have said, "no thanks, BCS. The money's nice and all that, but we don't think we should accept it." Should those of us who cheer for the Bucks have just stayed home and played with ourselves, rather than support the team? Yes, this year and probably for the past few, the SEC is the best overall conference in college football. That will not be the case in perpetuity, so get off the smug kick, SEC fans. Teams in the PAC 10, Big 12, and even the Big 10 will rise and fall in cycles, as they always have. In five years, there may be much discussion about how some SEC team snuck into the big one to get beaten by an obviously better ACC team. That doesn't mean that a team doesn't deserve credit for what they accomplished. I also hear that the Big 10 is addressing the long postseason layoff issue next year. Is it true that the season is being pushed back a few weeks so there is no more six to seven week layoff before bowl games? Maybe one of you Wolverine fans, hanging out in your shiny new R-squared A-squared t-shirts could look into it.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:00 PM on January 12, 2008
To be honest, I expected more from the Times Picayune sports page. The score is closer than the game really was. What now? Is LSU undisputed in it's national championship or do USC and Georgia have lagit' arguments. Once again the SEC shows its dominance going 9-2 in the bowl games. I know there are those that will disagree and I wouldnt have it any other way. No matter the coaches poll LSU is the BCS champs so all I can say is Gaux Tigers.