Official 2008-2009 College Football Thread

[whitesoxfan101]

Theres just no way to do it

 

And it really pisses me off that everyone has thrown Texas Tech away in these discussions.. I listened to ESPN Radio all day and all it was, was Texas and OU talk.. not once did anyone mention Texas Tech

 

They finished 11-1 (7-1) too, how come there is no argument for them? Why is it that Texas got hosed and they should be going instead of OU? Tech beat them, yet, I don't hear anyone talking about them..

 

And im not talking about the BCS convo because obviously they were too far back (Which is also BS because they are penalized for losing last), but for other scenarios no one is even bringing them up..

 

I agree in the end there is no way to do it. Even if I come to the side that OU belongs in the Big 12 title game here though, which I will do for the sake of argument, you can't have Tech in there. When you have 3 teams dead even in overall and league record, something like margin of loss in the one loss is going to matter, and unfortunately for Tech their loss was an ass kicking. Now, I will say this, if OU loses Saturday and Texas makes the national title game, I will be right back here saying how Tech got screwed because if that happens, it becomes a Tech against Texas argument and I go back to head to head in that case.

Edited December 2, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[T R U]

I agree in the end there is no way to do it. Even if I come to the side that OU belongs in the Big 12 title game here though, which I will do for the sake of argument, you can't have Tech in there. When you have 3 teams dead even in overall and league record, something like margin of loss in the one loss is going to matter, and unfortunately for Tech their loss was an ass kicking. Now, I will say this, if OU loses Saturday and Texas makes the national title game, I will be right back here saying how Tech got screwed because if that happens, it becomes a Tech against Texas argument and I go back to head to head in that case.

 

I just don't like how all the Texas fans are throwing a fit over this, yet, not ONE of them would agree that Tech should be in front of them since they beat them head to head..

 

Even if OU embarrassed them, that shouldn't take away their win over Texas or their 11-1 record.. I think they are as deserving as Texas and OU in terms of who goes to the Big 12 title game.. but OU is there, like they should be, and its over with

 

If you think about it, Tech is getting the worse jobbing of this situation.. not only are they not even considered to go to the Big 12 title game.. they don't even get to go to a BCS game

 

[whitesoxfan101]

If you think about it, Tech is getting the worse jobbing of this situation.. not only are they not even considered to go to the Big 12 title game.. they don't even get to go to a BCS game

 

That I agree with, becuase Tech should be ahead of Texas in line for the BCS title game if OU loses, and they obviously have no shot at it if that happens.

[GoodAsGould]

You cant compare basketball to football..

 

A non BCS conference school would never get to the final four of a CFB Tourny

 

Didnt Wisconsin-Milwaukee make the final 4 just a few years back? They are pretty much equivalent to Utah/Boise State/Hawaii/etc.

[Heads22]

Didnt Wisconsin-Milwaukee make the final 4 just a few years back? They are pretty much equivalent to Utah/Boise State/Hawaii/etc.

 

No.

[Texsox]

Sorry, but that's just not good enough

 

It doesn't matter if Texas Tech was embarrassed 8 days ago.. they still beat Texas in a game they DOMINATED until the final minutes when they came right down the field and won regardless..

 

If Texas Tech getting embarrassed doesn't matter then Texas win on a neutral field doesn't matter either.. It was a three way tie, and the team with the more impressive resume won out in the end.

 

And you're kidding yourself if you think Florida beating Alabama next week wont vault them into the title game.. I see no way it doesn't happen, regardless of what they are looking at right now.. LSU wasn't anywhere near the title game last season, and when the final BCS came out winning the SEC sent them from what, 7th I think, to the title game.

 

Texas played Tech after beating three top 10 teams on consecutive weeks. It went six tie breakers deep and it was a razor thin margin.

 

The problem I see is two fold. The two best teams in the Big 12 are not playing for their title. The three best teams this year were all in the south. That's problem one.

 

Problem two, and while it probably will not come to this, but a case could be made that two of the Big 12 teams are the two best teams in college football this year. There is no way they could actually play in the BCS title game. Next year it could be the Big 10 or SEC. But I see where the two best teams could be from the same conference, and this system just sucks in that unlikely scenario.

[Jimbo's Drinker]

Wisconsin did though, little bit of a difference.

[rowandrules83]

Come on man, I don't care if they were undefeated AND won their bowl game..

 

So Boise State has to pull all their trick plays out of their ass to edge OU.. there is zero chance they can then go the next week and beat Florida, and then the next week and beat USC.. and so on

 

It aint gonna happen, and all you do with a playoff in college football is pretty much come down to the same teams who would be fighting for a BCS spot anyways..

 

The reason teams like Utah and Boise State go undefeated and don't get a chance to play for a national title is because they don't play anyone in the regular season

I could counter-argue that I think they would've beat Florida and USC and whoever else they could've played, but neither of us could be proven right or wrong. That's the flaw in the system. The only definitive way to decide how good or over-rated Boise State really is is in a playoff. If we were to argue who would win a particular matchup in any other sport's championship, no matter what we said, the result on the field would speak for itself. Any system where there has been multiple times where there have been national co-champions, decided by computers and sportswriters, probably isn't the best system.

 

 

 

 

[T R U]

I could counter-argue that I think they would've beat Florida and USC and whoever else they could've played, but neither of us could be proven right or wrong. That's the flaw in the system. The only definitive way to decide how good or over-rated Boise State really is is in a playoff. If we were to argue who would win a particular matchup in any other sport's championship, no matter what we said, the result on the field would speak for itself. Any system where there has been multiple times where there have been national co-champions, decided by computers and sportswriters, probably isn't the best system.

 

You cant counter argue that though.. thats just you saying a bunch of stuff, not an argument

 

There is absolutely ZERO chance that Boise State/Utah could beat Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC in consecutive weeks

 

Of course everyone can compare professional playoffs, but all those playoff teams are around even ground.. each team will have some all stars.. Boise State doesn't have that.. Utah doesn't have that.. The difference in talent between Florida, Texas, OU, Alabama, USC, Penn State, etc and those two schools is so ridiculously large..

 

Talent will always win out in the end, always.. and that's why there is no chance these small school and their 2-3 star recruits will ever do anything in a playoff.. and all we've done is make a season even longer when its just going to be the same teams at the end anyways..

[RockRaines]

There is absolutely ZERO chance that Boise State/Utah could beat Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC in consecutive weeks

THAT. College football is not College Basketball people. There is a zero percent chance that a non-major teams runs through more than one good BCS school in a tourney. There will be years that a non-BCS school is as good as the BCS teams, and we could see Bowl "upsets", but in the end the bigger and better teams will win if its consecutive games like a tourney.

[rowandrules83]

You cant counter argue that though.. thats just you saying a bunch of stuff, not an argument

 

There is absolutely ZERO chance that Boise State/Utah could beat Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC in consecutive weeks

 

Of course everyone can compare professional playoffs, but all those playoff teams are around even ground.. each team will have some all stars.. Boise State doesn't have that.. Utah doesn't have that.. The difference in talent between Florida, Texas, OU, Alabama, USC, Penn State, etc and those two schools is so ridiculously large..

 

Talent will always win out in the end, always.. and that's why there is no chance these small school and their 2-3 star recruits will ever do anything in a playoff.. and all we've done is make a season even longer when its just going to be the same teams at the end anyways..

 

You can say zero chance all you want. Hell, I'm not even saying that I disagree with that. But the only true way to definitively know that is by a playoff.

 

And it's not just the Boise States and the Utahs. You named about 6 teams as examples of big, tough teams. Well, Texas, Florida, USC, OU, Penn St, Texas Tech, Alabama all have one loss or less. Is it really the ideal solution to let a computer and sportswriters decide which two are the best? USC had an easier schedule than any of the Big 12 teams and is a longshot to get to the title game. But talent-wise, they match up with any school in the nation. Why shouldn't they get a chance? Or any one of the several one loss teams for that matter?

 

Look, if it's just gonna end up being the same 2 teams in the end like you said, then a playoff wouldn't hurt. It would eliminate controversy and leave the results on the field. And seeing as the regular season ends this weekend, a hypothetical 8-12 team playoff could start next weekend, which would have the season end the first week in January, the same week it ends now. So making the season longer wouldn't be that much of an issue.

[T R U]

You can say zero chance all you want. Hell, I'm not even saying that I disagree with that. But the only true way to definitively know that is by a playoff.

 

And it's not just the Boise States and the Utahs. You named about 6 teams as examples of big, tough teams. Well, Texas, Florida, USC, OU, Penn St, Texas Tech, Alabama all have one loss or less. Is it really the ideal solution to let a computer and sportswriters decide which two are the best? USC had an easier schedule than any of the Big 12 teams and is a longshot to get to the title game. But talent-wise, they match up with any school in the nation. Why shouldn't they get a chance? Or any one of the several one loss teams for that matter?

 

Look, if it's just gonna end up being the same 2 teams in the end like you said, then a playoff wouldn't hurt. It would eliminate controversy and leave the results on the field. And seeing as the regular season ends this weekend, a hypothetical 8-12 team playoff could start next weekend, which would have the season end the first week in January, the same week it ends now. So making the season longer wouldn't be that much of an issue.

 

You're right, the only true way to find out is with a playoff.. but common sense can dictate that the only teams who will benefit from it is the big players.. Utah is going to a BCS game, I am sure that their team is excited as well as the school.. I don't think that same excitement is there if its a 12 team playoff and they are one of the last seeds and have to go to Florida for their first game..

 

And yes, it is ideal to let the computers and voters decide who goes where.. Who you play matters, USC didn't play a tough schedule at all and lost to a solid Oregon State team.. OU lost to Texas, Texas lost to Texas Tech, and Texas Tech lost to OU.. I don't think there is any argument that all three of those teams would get greater consideration than USC for who they played and who they lost to.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

What if Texas Tech had lost by 7 to 10 points at Oklahoma? As bad as it is now, there would REALLY be no way to seperate the 3 tied teams in that senario, except that Oklahoma would be the only one of the three to not play either of the other two on the road, but even that doesn't work since OU is the only one that had to play at Oklahoma State.

[T R U]

What if Texas Tech had lost by 7 to 10 points at Oklahoma? As bad as it is now, there would REALLY be no way to seperate the 3 tied teams in that senario, except that Oklahoma would be the only one of the three to not play either of the other two on the road, but even that doesn't work since OU is the only one that had to play at Oklahoma State.

 

I just don't think point differential should eliminate Texas Tech, even if they had only lost by 7-10 they would still have fallen back behind OU and Texas in the polls because they lost last..

 

They still beat Texas, and has the same record as the other two teams..

[whitesoxfan101]

I just don't think point differential should eliminate Texas Tech, even if they had only lost by 7-10 they would still have fallen back behind OU and Texas in the polls because they lost last..

 

They still beat Texas, and has the same record as the other two teams..

 

I don't think point differential is really fair either, but that is what eliminated them and really, it's more fair than any of the other options in this debate.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

What if Texas Tech had lost by 7 to 10 points at Oklahoma? As bad as it is now, there would REALLY be no way to seperate the 3 tied teams in that senario, except that Oklahoma would be the only one of the three to not play either of the other two on the road, but even that doesn't work since OU is the only one that had to play at Oklahoma State.

 

IMO even if Tech barely lost it would be tough to put them in the discussion, one reason being there non conference schedule (Eastern Washington, at Nevada, SMU, Massachusetts). Plus they didn't play Mizzou.

[rowandrules83]

You're right, the only true way to find out is with a playoff.. but common sense can dictate that the only teams who will benefit from it is the big players.. Utah is going to a BCS game, I am sure that their team is excited as well as the school.. I don't think that same excitement is there if its a 12 team playoff and they are one of the last seeds and have to go to Florida for their first game..

 

And yes, it is ideal to let the computers and voters decide who goes where.. Who you play matters, USC didn't play a tough schedule at all and lost to a solid Oregon State team.. OU lost to Texas, Texas lost to Texas Tech, and Texas Tech lost to OU.. I don't think there is any argument that all three of those teams would get greater consideration than USC for who they played and who they lost to.

Actually, I think there would be excitement about a playoff. A little non-BCS team is one of the last 8 or 12 teams standing with a shot at a title? Maybe it's just me, but that's exciting in itself.

 

In terms of the ideal scenario, letting computers and writers pick is not at all the best. Is there really anything that separates the top 3 Big 12 teams? How is the system fair to Texas and Texas Tech? They both had great seasons, lost 1 game to a very tough conference opponent...just like OU. What makes OU any more deserving? A computer formula? And if USC looked dominant against so many teams, but lost one game very early in the year to a pretty good Oregon St team, shouldn't they be considered? If Alabama, who has been dominant in a tough SEC loses the title game to a very tough Florida team while OU plays a good but not great Mizzou team, why shouldn't Bama get another crack at the BCS title game?

 

With the BCS, almost every year there is legitimate questions that are raised over who deserves to play for the title. I don't see how a playoff would make the regular season meaningless. The NFL has been doing playoffs since God knows when, and I can't recall hearing any complaints about the regular season meaning less because of it. But I guess we can just agree to disagree

[Palehosefan]

IMO even if Tech barely lost it would be tough to put them in the discussion, one reason being there non conference schedule (Eastern Washington, at Nevada, SMU, Massachusetts). Plus they didn't play Mizzou.

 

Not really sure how that works. Nevada had the #5 offense in the nation, and 3 of those 4 OOC teams have at least 6 wins this year. Overall Tech has beaten 7 teams with 6 or more wins on the year. It's not like Tech chose to play two 1-AA teams, Tulsa backed out right before the season started, so Tech had nobody to replace them with.

 

11-1 with wins over 7 teams with 6 or more wins, and the only loss was at the #2 team in the nation after playing @Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma State, and @Oklahoma. How come nobody is talking about that brutal 4 game stretch that ended in OU?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Palehosefan

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Not really sure how that works. Nevada had the #5 offense in the nation, and 3 of those 4 OOC teams have at least 6 wins this year. Overall Tech has beaten 7 teams with 6 or more wins on the year. It's not like Tech chose to play two 1-AA teams, Tulsa backed out right before the season started, so Tech had nobody to replace them with.

 

11-1 with wins over 7 teams with 6 or more wins, and the only loss was at the #2 team in the nation after playing @Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma State, and @Oklahoma. How come nobody is talking about that brutal 4 game stretch that ended in OU?

 

Please, two of those teams are 1-AA, with a 1-11 C-USA team. I understand it's not their fault that Tulsa backed out, but it was still a s***ty non conference schedule.

 

[Palehosefan]

Please, two of those teams are 1-AA, with a 1-11 C-USA team. I understand it's not their fault that Tulsa backed out, but it was still a s***ty non conference schedule.

 

 

If you are going to do that, you have to count out Texas as well. Fla. Atlantic, UTEP, Rice, and Arkansas. Only Rice is even above .500 from that group, and their marquee win is over Houston or Memphis.

 

TTU at least played at Nevada, a 7-5 bowl eligable #5 ranked offense team. Texas' only road game was at UTEP, a team that lost to 3-9 New Mexico State.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

http://deadspin.com/5101020/youve-got-some...-is-at-it-again

 

Pete Carroll is an idiot. I hope this comes back to bite him in the ass.

[whitesoxbrian]

http://deadspin.com/5101020/youve-got-some...-is-at-it-again

 

Pete Carroll is an idiot. I hope this comes back to bite him in the ass.

For this, yes he's an idiot. But no, he's not an overall idiot, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a USC fan.

 

But, this could come back and haunt the Trojans. In 2006, USC went to the Rose Bowl and lost to UCLA 13-9, and at the time, USC was arguably the best team in the country with UCLA being just a "so-so" team. Any time these 2 teams play, UCLA could pull an upset.

 

I hope this doesn't, as you said, bite him in the a**.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

For this, yes he's an idiot. But no, he's not an overall idiot, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a USC fan.

 

But, this could come back and haunt the Trojans. In 2006, USC went to the Rose Bowl and lost to UCLA 13-9, and at the time, USC was arguably the best team in the country with UCLA being just a "so-so" team. Any time these 2 teams play, UCLA could pull an upset.

 

I hope this doesn't, as you said, bite him in the a**.

 

I'm not saying he's an idiot overall, but this is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

 

[zenryan]

kinda disrespectful to UCLA by basically saying we dont really need any time outs vs. you.

[Dick Allen]

Notre Dame is sticking with Weis.