2011 College Football Thread

[ACW]

Too much football?

While the season would be lengthened for some teams, many high school state champions play 16-game seasons. The NFL plays longer years with just 53-man rosters. And college football could always move to lessen the number of actual plays in a college game (often 12 percent more than a NFL game) by switching to the professional clock that runs more freely.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why would you have to cut the number of regular season games to 10? They could have the same number of games and have the round of 16 this coming Friday and Saturday, quarters on the 17th, Semis on the 24th and the Championship game on New Years Day.

LSU has played 13 games already. You really want them to play 17? That seems insane.

[ACW]

11 conferences? You are giving the Sun Belt and WAC a ticket? You really want 8-4 Louisiana Tech in this tournament?

Yes. Keeps it honest.

Yes' date=' all 11, even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Sun Belt champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, its presence is paramount to maintaining the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. Teams that put together exceptional season deserve to be rewarded. If you just take the top eight or 16 teams and match them up on a neutral field then there is no advantage to being No. 1 rather than No. 16.[/quote']

[The Evil Genius]

Too much football?

Most highschools play 10 regular season games.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Too much football?

The Texas high school champions play 16 games...and that is clearly too many.

Look, I'm on board with paying college athletes and treating the NCAA as a minor league for the NFL. But the idea that a national champion would have to play 17 games strikes me as a remarkable leap.

I remember when everyone started playing 11 games. That was viewed as a crime against nature.

The money in this would have to really be phenomenal. Penn State plays the Indiana States of the world, because it makes something in the neigborhood of $8 million every time it fills the stadium.

[bushwack]

Why would 17 games be too much? Whoever plays in the FCS (D-1AA) championship game will have either played 16 or 17 games.

The FCS recently went to a 20-team playoff where there are 5 seeded teams, #1-5, and then the top 12 team receive a bye and then the other 8 teams play 4 games the first weekend then you have the round of 16, round of 8, semi's, and championship. The only problem with the FCS playoffs that the FBS fans would complain about is that conference champions get to into the playoffs. An example in the FCS, the MEAC (Mid-Eastern Atlantic Conference) Champion Norfolk St. played ODU (CAA at-large) @ ODU and ODU wiped the floor with them, and continued to the MEAC's losing streak in the playoffs to 12 years. They haven't won a playoff game since '99.

Even with conference champions getting in, I would say the FCS playoff system is much more fair than the BCS system the FBS has.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Here's another thought.

OU has won 7 of the last 12 Big 12 titles.

Ohio State has appeared in the BCS 9 times.

Oregon and USC have 11 combined appearances.

The only conferences that are really fluid are the SEC (which seems to rotate its "power" teams every two or so years) and the ACC (and even they have been dominated by Va Tech in recent years).

If the idea is to end the "dominance" of the power teams, I don't see how a playoff really does. You can send the NIUs of the world to the slaughter, but that's just window dressing. We're still going to end up with SEC champ vs Oklahoma vs USC vs Oregon, I think.

And as much fun as the NCAA basketball tourney is, it has its downside. There is simply no way on earth that the second best team in the college basketball over the past two years has been Butler. As a tool for selecting the "best team," a one and done tournament is kind of awful.

[Major Harris]

why not butler?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just for ****s and giggles, the "at large" teams in ACW's never never tourney are:

1. Alabama

2. Stanford

3. Arkansas

4. Kansas State

5. South Carolina.

So, the SEC gets 4 teams in during a "down year."

If you put an artificial limit on and hold the SEC to 3 teams (which isn't fair either), Va Tech gets in.

For the record, the two most exciting players in college football are arguably RGIII and Denard Robinson. They would not be in this dream tournament so Lousiana Tech and Arkansa State can play.

[MattFancy]

Here's another thought.

OU has won 7 of the last 12 Big 12 titles.

Ohio State has appeared in the BCS 9 times.

Oregon and USC have 11 combined appearances.

The only conferences that are really fluid are the SEC (which seems to rotate its "power" teams every two or so years) and the ACC (and even they have been dominated by Va Tech in recent years).

If the idea is to end the "dominance" of the power teams' date=' I don't see how a playoff really does. You can send the NIUs of the world to the slaughter, but that's just window dressing. We're still going to end up with SEC champ vs Oklahoma vs USC vs Oregon, I think.

And as much fun as the NCAA basketball tourney is, it has its downside. There is simply no way on earth that the second best team in the college basketball over the past two years has been Butler. As a tool for selecting the "best team," a one and done tournament is kind of awful.[/quote']

Yeah but were the Giants really the best team in 2007 when they beat the Patriots? Were the Cardinals really the best team in baseball last year?

Things like that happen in the playoffs. And that's what makes it more exciting.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

why not butler?

I just don't think the NCAA tournament does a great job of selecting the "best" teams. It's fun, and Butler is a good team. But there is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in that tournament.

For the record, I don't think UConn was the best team in the country last year. They just got super hot at the right time in a down year.

The best way to choose a national champion would be some kind of 16-team tourney filled with 3 or 5 game series. That would take approximately the entire season to complete.

Here is my point. If LSU goes 13 with the schedule they played, then wins 3 games in this tournament and then loses on a fluke play to a team with a lucky draw. (Let's pretend Alabama catches a break because the Sun Belt team upsets the #3 seed or something)...is that "fair."

I don't think a playoff is any more "fair" than any other system because the schedule aren't balanced.

It seems really unfair to me that a team can build a name in a lesser conference while a team like Georgia is always stuck being the third best team in a power conference. You would basically be creating the NCAA basketball tourney from the 70s where the ACC always had the three of the top five teams in the country but only one could go to the tourney. Meanwhile, UCLA could just cruise through the Pac 8, get a bye, play a home game, and be in the Final Four.

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 01:26 PM ----------

Yeah but were the Giants really the best team in 2007 when they beat the Patriots? Were the Cardinals really the best team in baseball last year?

Things like that happen in the playoffs. And that's what makes it more exciting.

Pro sports are a little more standardized because of the balance of the schedules. And baseball works because of the length of the regular season and the length of series in the playoffs. (This is why the idea of a one-game wild card playoff is asinine).

College football is a short season to start with and would almost have to get shorter with a playoff. And then (at least under the ACW plan), you are going to be punishing teams in strong conferences while rewarding teams in bad conferences.

I don't see a playoff as a panacea - particularly this year. Would Clemson winning the national title really make sense?

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 01:29 PM ----------

PS

I think what really happens in the playoff talk is that we confuse "fair" with "fun."

I think the fairest system would probably be the top four teams play a final four. Making LSU win four more freaking games would be a punishment.

LSU-Stanford

Alabama-OSU

And there is an obvious, glaring unfairness there. Oregon crushed Stanford and won the Pac 12 title. How is that fair? (Seriously, how is Stanford ranked #4? I don't get it).

I think every scenario involves really glaring flaws.

The old system was stupidly unfair, but could be really really fun.

The current system is slightly more fair. (As Czaban pointed out, this year, we are sure that we are watching the clear #1 play a team that is - at worst - #3). The problem here is that this system is not much fun.

A playoff would be stupidly fun and maybe a little more fair than the current system. I think.

[Hersh]

I don't think a playoff is any more "fair" than any other system because the schedule aren't balanced.

Pro sports are a little more standardized because of the balance of the schedules. And baseball works because of the length of the regular season and the length of series in the playoffs. (This is why the idea of a one-game wild card playoff is asinine).

College football is a short season to start with and would almost have to get shorter with a playoff. And then (at least under the ACW plan)' date=' you are going to be punishing teams in strong conferences while rewarding teams in bad conferences.

I don't see a playoff as a panacea - particularly this year. Would Clemson winning the national title really make sense?

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 01:29 PM ----------

PS

I think what really happens in the playoff talk is that we confuse "fair" with "fun."

I think the fairest system would probably be the top four teams play a final four. Making LSU win four more freaking games would be a punishment.

LSU-Stanford

Alabama-OSU

And there is an obvious, glaring unfairness there. Oregon crushed Stanford and won the Pac 12 title. How is that fair? (Seriously, how is Stanford ranked #4? I don't get it).

I think every scenario involves really glaring flaws.

The old system was stupidly unfair, but could be really really fun.

The current system is slightly more fair. (As Czaban pointed out, this year, we are sure that we are watching the clear #1 play a team that is - at worst - #3). The problem here is that this system is not much fun.

A playoff would be stupidly fun and maybe a little more fair than the current system. I think.

Until now I've never heard anyone complain that a playoff system unfairly produces a champion.

[MattFancy]

The problem with the BCS is when there isn't a clear cut #2 team. This year is the perfect example. You could make a case for Ok St or Alabama and you wouldn't be wrong either way. So why should a computer figure out who plays?

We get cries for a Plus-1 to see who the champion should be, how about a Plus-1 this year to see who is #2? Winner plays LSU

[terrifNick21]

There's always some kind of an excuse to knock a team that's not in that ****ing SEC. It's pure BIAS. I'm an Oklahoma fan, and I HATE Oklahoma State, but they deserve to be in the championship game. I'm SO ****ING SICK of hearing who lost to who, and what teams that team lost to. WHO GIVES A ****? Oklahoma State lost ONE game in OVERTIME, just as ALABAMA. OK State played after coaches from their school were KILLED. It's a TRAGEDY they played after, having a huge effect on their mindset. It wasn't surprising they lost. They lost on the ROAD. Alabama lost at HOME. If Oklahoma State were in the SEC and Alabama was in the Big 12, people would be saying OK State should be in. FOUR of the 6 computers had OK State #2.FOUR. Then you have Nick Saban vote Stanford ahead of OK State in the coaches poll. OK State's not playing in the title game because of .009 points! Absolute joke. Saban gets a vote, but Mike Gundy doesn't? Get the **** out of here and quit riding the SECs ****ing NUTS because of outside of LSU and Alabama, the conference was nothing special this year. "Georgia and Arkansas won 10 games!" That's true. You know what else is true? Georgia got their asses spanked by LSU, and Arkansas got demolished by BOTH. It's all a reputation thing. Oklahoma State belongs in the National Championship game, and because of a JOKE of a system where one of the coaches **** OK State, they're not. Pathetic.

[The Tris]

There's always some kind of an excuse to knock a team that's not in that ****ing SEC.

At least the SEC has had serious and genuine commitment to a Plus One system (along with the ACC).

The LAST group that deserves blame here is the SEC.

If you are mad, blame the Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 12. They are the ones that put us in the position we are in today.

Don't blame Bama or the SEC. They have done absolutely nothing wrong here.

[renaissance]

At least the SEC has had serious and genuine commitment to a Plus One system (along with the ACC).

Of course they do, because they have no fear of ever not making it to the championship game.

[DCranon21]

At least the SEC has had serious and genuine commitment to a Plus One system (along with the ACC).

The LAST group that deserves blame here is the SEC.

If you are mad, blame the Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 12. They are the ones that put us in the position we are in today.

Actually, I have to agree with him here, and I follow the Big 10. SEC wanted to actually create something where you had the plus 1 system. Pac-12/Big 10 didn't want to play ball because of one bowl....The Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl is the main factor here. Now the interim Big 12 commish wants to play ball with the plus 1 system. Beebe didn't want to play ball with the +1 system.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

There's always some kind of an excuse to knock a team that's not in that ****ing SEC. It's pure BIAS. I'm an Oklahoma fan, and I HATE Oklahoma State, but they deserve to be in the championship game. I'm SO ****ING SICK of hearing who lost to who, and what teams that team lost to. WHO GIVES A ****? Oklahoma State lost ONE game in OVERTIME, just as ALABAMA. OK State played after coaches from their school were KILLED. It's a TRAGEDY they played after, having a huge effect on their mindset. It wasn't surprising they lost. They lost on the ROAD. Alabama lost at HOME. If Oklahoma State were in the SEC and Alabama was in the Big 12, people would be saying OK State should be in. FOUR of the 6 computers had OK State #2.FOUR. Then you have Nick Saban vote Stanford ahead of OK State in the coaches poll. OK State's not playing in the title game because of .009 points! Absolute joke. Saban gets a vote, but Mike Gundy doesn't? Get the **** out of here and quit riding the SECs ****ing NUTS because of outside of LSU and Alabama, the conference was nothing special this year. "Georgia and Arkansas won 10 games!" That's true. You know what else is true? Georgia got their asses spanked by LSU, and Arkansas got demolished by BOTH. It's all a reputation thing. Oklahoma State belongs in the National Championship game, and because of a JOKE of a system where one of the coaches **** OK State, they're not. Pathetic.

The Tigers were very lucky to leave Tuscaloosa with a 3 point win in OT when the two teams were ranked #1 and #2. No other team got that close to LSU and no other team beat Alabama. That warrants a rematch. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State as four touchdown favorites when ranked #2 and aware of the stakes. The Cyclones went 6-6, including a one point win over the mighty Northern Iowa and a three point win over a Kansas team already in full meltdown mode, a record that reflects very poorly on Oklahoma State.

The reality of the BCS system states that teams had better win. If they don't, then the loss had better be a good one in case some other team has a possibly superior resume. In some years Oklahoma State could have slid by with the Iowa State fiasco. Unfortunately for them, Alabama's season means the Cowboys' loss is unforgivable.

[The Tris]

Of course they do, because they have no fear of ever not making it to the championship game.

And?

They tried to fix this. Had they had their way, OKSU would be playing BAMA in the National Semifinals. End of story.

But other conferences, including the Big 12, REFUSED TO EVEN DISCUSS THE POSSIBLITY of a Plus One. They stonewalled Slive where he stood.

So to cast one shread of blame on the SEC or Alabama for this matchup is the height of ignorance.

[terrifNick21]

The Tigers were very lucky to leave Tuscaloosa with a 3 point win in OT when the two teams were ranked #1 and #2. No other team got that close to LSU and no other team beat Alabama. That warrants a rematch. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State as four touchdown favorites when ranked #2 and aware of the stakes. The Cyclones went 6-6, including a one point win over the mighty Northern Iowa and a three point win over a Kansas team already in full meltdown mode, a record that reflects very poorly on Oklahoma State.

The reality of the BCS system states that teams had better win. If they don't, then the loss had better be a good one in case some other team has a possibly superior resume. In some years Oklahoma State could have slid by with the Iowa State fiasco. Unfortunately for them, Alabama's season means the Cowboys' loss is unforgivable.

There's a W column. There's an L column. L doesn't stand for lucky. LSU got the W, no matter how you slice it. They were better that night.

So, we base our opinions off of what Vegas says? REALLY? Come on. Favorites/underdogs are for gamblers. It means NOTHING on the field.

And we're going to punish OK State for the teams Iowa State beat? REALLY? That's an absolute joke.

Oklahoma State had a tougher schedule than Alabama, won their conference championship game, and should be playing.

But thanks to crooked coaches, they won't be. Shame.

[The Tris]

won their conference championship game

Wait, when was the Big 12 Championship Game? I guess I missed that.

and should be playing.

Both teams deserved a shot. And a convincing argument can be made for both. Which side you fall on comes down to nothing more than personal bias.

[renaissance]

And?

Nobody is blaming the SEC or Alabama. I'm just saying it's pretty easy to argue for a plus 1 when you already make it to the ship year after year.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Don't lose to 6-6 Iowa State. Problem solved.

[ixcuincle]

http://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/statuses/143762992301998081

Yep. RT @JHopkins247: Jim Mora Jr. is a name to watch pop up on the #UCLA coaching search.

[Popeman38]

http://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/statuses/143762992301998081

Good. He is an insult to viewers of the NFL on FOX with his atrocious color analysis.