I was actually just about to post exactly the same thing. People, this isn't going to be like Oregon/Auburn last year where we had two evenly matched teams. If you've been watching all the conferences it's pretty clear that the disparity in talent isn't even close. I'm a bit torn personally. On the one hand I know LSU will murder anyone from the big 12 or pac 10, but it seems wrong to have a title game from two teams not only in the same conference, but the same damn division. You know what? Fuck it, just give us the better game. I know a lot of dweebs only care about how many points are scored, but the better quality football will be a 'bama/LSU rematch. I think Oklahoma St might be the only team left with a chance to leap Alabama if they beat Oklahoma, but that's a big if.
Which is why, again, they need a playoff. I don't understand why the NCAA won't do a football version of March Madness when they see how big that could be. I would rather watch the top 16 or top 32 battle it out than bowl games with 7-6 Whoever against the 9-4 Whatzits. I think everyone else feels the same. To deny the #2 team in the country an opportunity to battle it out with the #1 team just because they both happen to be in the same conference is stupid. They should just rank everyone from 1-25, take the top 16, put the odds in one bracket, the evens in the other, and work it out.
Well, that's the ideal solution, but since we live on planet BCS cluster fuck, this is the conundrum we're stuck with. A 16 team playoff would be pretty good since bowl season lasts about a month anyway. Then let the teams eliminated play in their crappy side bowls afterwards if it's really necessary.
Exactly. When you think about how much money and time is wasted every March for the NCAA tournament by non-fans, you'd think the NCAA money machine would pull their heads out of their asses.
I can't believe Virginia Tech is going to be the fifth ranked team in the country if they win tomorrow. Ridiculous.
What are the odds UGA can upset LSU in Atlanta next week? I haven't seen them play, so I don't know how unstoppable this juggernaut is. If that happens, then what? Alabama plays for the title without winning their division or conference? Against, presumably, Stanford? I can't believe UGA lost their first 2, then won 10 straight. It's been a good day for football, as far as I'm concerned.
Why are Montee Ball and Russell Wilson not being mentioned more prominently in draft discussions? These guys are playing great.
LSU is absolutely unreal. They went down 14-0 in no time to Arkansas and acted merely annoyed before absolutely embarrassing them the rest of the way. I like UGA, and they've always been a team I casually root for an follow, but I would be surprised if they keep it within 2 scores. Maybe because Wilson is like 5'11. Montee Ball wasn't even the starter last year, so people are still figuring him out, plus UW backs don't have a great history in the NFL. Its a system that favors RBs cause they run behind a MASSIVE and well coached OL. He's not on the same level as a Richardson or as dynamic as James from Oregon. He's good, but not top 10-20 pick good.
Both of those are fair points, although I'd still be salivating at the prospect of getting Ball late first and Wilson in mid-rounds, where they're currently projected. And James isn't so much "dynamic" as he is "really fucking fast," which is a valuable enough talent.
It's also worth noting Wilson is a hell of a baseball talent. He was in the Rockies system for a while before transferring from NC State to Wisconsin. Colorado still owns his rights. He'll have a decision to make after his bowl game.
The odds aren't good. UGA is probably going to lose by 30. The talking heads claim that LSU is in the NC no matter what, even with a loss to Georgia, based on how well they've played all year. Just FYI, Stanford didn't win their division or conference, either. They have a better overall record than Oregon, but because Oregon beat them, it will be Oregon against a terrible UCLA team in the Pac-12 Championship game, thanks to sanctions against USC. As far as the general argument all over the internet about not winning a division or conference, then I guess Notre Dame or any other independents will never be allowed to play in the NC ever again, right? The way I see it, the NC should be the two best teams, period. I don't care if they are in the same conference or not. If you are going to base it on win-loss, then it should be LSU-Houston. LSU wins that game by about 50. If you are going to take LSU and the best one loss team, it gets really, really simple: 'Bama lost to #1 LSU by 3 points in OT. Forget the fact that 'Bama could have won the game by 6 or 9 if they could have made some frickin' field goals. They lost to the #1 team in the country by 3 points, 9-6, in the most hyped game of the year. OKST lost to unranked Iowa State 37-31. I don't care how great OKST's offense is... If you give up 37 points to Iowa State, LSU is going to ass rape you. Stanford got beat down by #6 Oregon, 53-30. They let USC score 48 on them in their 56-48 win. Again, LSU is going to kill them. Virginia Tech lost to #13 Clemson, 23-3. Based strictly on that criteria, it's very obvious that 'Bama is the only team that can play with LSU. I think both 'Bama and LSU kill any of the other top 10 teams. I think the only argument people are pointing to is that they are both in the same division in the SEC. So what? If one is ranked #1, and the other is ranked #2, and when they played neither team truly dominated the other, I think a rematch is in order. If LSU had beat 'Bama by 14 or 20, that would be a different story. If 'Bama had beat LSU 9-6 the other way, I would think LSU deserves a rematch as well.
Here's my guess about the general sentiment against 2 teams in the same conference playing for a championship. Alabama had their chance against LSU. They already got to play LSU, and we already know that LSU can beat them because they did. Now, I want to see someone different get a chance. OK State - gave up 37 points to Iowa State. Remember that was with an additional 2 overtimes so while the points were still on the board, let's not act like Iowa St hung them all up in just 4 quarters. They've also beaten Baylor (now #17), Texas (22), Kansas State (11), and Missouri (25). Assuming they still have just 1 loss come bowl selection, that implies they'll have also beaten Oklahoma as well. Poor defense, but awesome offense. Stanford - Yeah, they got beat down by Oregon, who is a really good team. At least, I think Oregon is a good team, having only lost to #1 LSU and USC. As for the 48 points hung up by USC: (1) again 14 of those came in overtime. I know people won't find that very convincing, but I don't like the idea of saying it as though it all came in regulation. And (2) I think USC has one of the best offenses in the NCAA. The AP has USC at #9 right now. Alabama - Lost to the #1 team in the country in a very close game. Don't give me that "most hyped game of the year" stuff. That was entirely media manufactured. Plus where you saw a close game between 2 heavyweight teams, I saw a really boring game with a lot of poor football being played by both teams. Maybe Bama could have won with some field goals, or maybe LSU would have stomped them with some better execution and a neutral field. Other teams beaten by Alabama that are still ranked: Penn State (21, but I don't think they are top 25 material), Arkansas (8, a good overall team), and that's it. Victories against still ranked opponents: OK State (currently 4. 5 if they beat Oklahoma), Stanford (1, who you could argue is a top ten team), Alabama (2, including a top ten team). My point isn't to say that Alabama shouldn't be in the title game. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you want it to be. I actually think that they probably have the most compelling argument for being selected. However, they already got a chance against LSU and lost. Meanwhile, there are some other undeniably good teams out there. I think everyone on this board favors some kind of playoff (I myself want 16 teams. Winners of the 6 BCS conferences get automatic berths, with the rest being filled up by the next top 10 teams. This would allow for independents like Notre Dame and smaller programs like Houston and Boise State to get a chance if they're able to get ranked high enough, the latter 2 of which would qualify this year). I'm willing to bet that most of the NCAAF viewing public wants a playoff as well. But that's not what we have.
That's about the worst logic to determine a National Championship match-up ever. What's the point of the polls and the computers and all the other bullshit? So just because Alabama lost a very close game, the rest of the season is moot? "Hey guys, you're ranked #2 and all that, the only game you lost was to the #1 team in the country by 3 points in OT, so we're going to pick someone else?" I mean, your logic right there explains exactly why there needs to be a playoff. If you're going to apply that logic to that game, why not apply it everywhere? Let's make it for all the conference games, too then. Dude, it's still Iowa State. 6-5 Iowa State. Unranked Iowa State. Iowa State that lost to Missouri 52 - 17. I don't care how many overtimes there were, there was just no reason to lose to them. 'Bama losing by 3 in OT to LSU is not exactly the same as OK State losing to Iowa State in double OT. The pure talent disparity between the two teams should have made it a landslide victory. OK State was Absolutely agree. There are thirty five bowl games. Even an 8 team playoff (because honestly, all you need is the top 8) would only take up 3 weeks and 7 of those bowl games. That still leaves spots for 56 teams to waste time on meaningless games. They can have one round of four games in the middle of December, the second round of two games at the end of December, and the NC in it's usual spot around January 8th. Spread the wealth around the bowls from year to year to year, make the playoff games rotate locations so all the bowls can rake in the cash and watch the ratings skyrocket.
70 bowl spots for 120 FBS teams (even less when you figure in bowl ineligible teams like USC this year) and it is actually harder to NOT go to a bowl game than it is to make it to one. The debate on Pittsburgh's sports talk radio this afternoon was would you want Pitt to beat Syracuse this week to get to 6-6 to become bowl eligible and go on to a bowl. A pretty realistic possibility. A lot of people here don't want to go to a bowl because they feel it'll be embarrassing, even if they win. Personally, I want them to go if only because it provides more opportunities for practice and game time, which for a coach trying to introduce a new system, can only prepare them further for next year. However, if they go to a bowl I honestly feel like they are going to struggle against which ever mid-major they wind up playing and it'll be a bit embarrassing on national TV. Nevertheless, if I'm a player on a 6-6 team, I'm not exactly feeling proud of getting selected to the Beef O'Brady's Bowl in St. Pete, Florida against that historically formidable FIU squad, especially when I know that I actually had more than a 58% of making something. The bowl system makes a lot of money, and the schools are afraid the unknown results of a playoff. It's further complicated because I think once you start a playoff format, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. I hate it when playoff opponents pretend like it isn't about money however and use words like "history" and "tradition."
No shit. How can it be "history" and "tradition" when there weren't thirty five bowl games 10 years ago? In the last 10 years, they've added 12 bowl games. It's ALL about the money, and I'll tell you this: If they want to sell out big-ass stadiums and make money, what's a bigger draw? NCST vs. FIU or #3 vs. #6 playing in the playoffs? You'd think after watching how crazy March Madness makes people, these assclowns would have figured it out already. I think the only reason some teams would be against it is that when a school goes to a bowl game, they get money for showing up. From what I understand, the money they make all gets pooled and distributed in their conference, so the more bowl games they go to, the more money they make.
You made a lot of good points, but I think the flip side bares consideration as well. 1. LSU and Alabama have blown everyone out, except when they played each other. They're doing that in a tougher conference than other teams. Personally I would say Arkansas is much more comparable to Oklahoma St, Stanford, Boise St, etc and they got killed. The only other top ten team that somewhat fits that consistency is Oregon, but they've lost twice including a stomping against LSU. 2. In almost every league in every sport you can play a team in both the regular season and post season. Does NCCAF necessarily have to be an exception? 3. We've seen for several years in a row how these high flying offenses do in the title game. Also, when you look at the other side of the ball some of these teams suddenly become much weaker. Florida plays better defense than Oklahoma St and they flat out suck this year. 4. What is it really that makes a team legitimate? Is it the conference they're in, which says Houston can't play? Is it strength of schedule, which Alabama has an edge in, or winning percentage that they're at least tied in? You can almost base an entire argument around stats in the nfl, but it's less useful in this league since teams play very few, if any common opponents. I can't help but wonder if people actually think others in the top ten are actually better than Alabama, or just don't want to see it happen because they already played. It's worth pointing out that Oregon probably would have replayed LSU if they hadn't lost to USC and Oklahoma beat Oklahoma St.
Honestly, I am so fucking tired of having this stupid, meaningless debate year after year after year. I mean really, we go through this every year at about this time, and it never changes. The conversation has not changed since Texas in 2008 or USC in 2003 or anything else down the line. And every year we find some way to argue the case for Boise State or Utah or TCU to absolutely no avail. There are few things in the world I love more than college football, and the points you laid out are all correct - all of them, I can't find anything I disagree with you on - but if I never have this debate again it'll be too soon. I mean seriously, guys - don't you get tired of this? How unsatisfying is this system and this conversation? How many times do we have to go through this, digging for some reason why team A is deserves a shot over team B? Doesn't this ever piss you off? Surprisingly, though, there is one person in the world who still favors the current bowl system, and his name is Chuck Klosterman. I'm usually a fan of his work, but this column of his from 2006 is just plain awful in nearly every way: <a class="postlink" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... man/070103</a>
You have to love rivalries. Sometimes the jabs and the bitterness are more exciting than the actual game. Thursday, Clemson coach Dabo Swinney added some fuel to the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry fire when he barked at Gamecocks coach Steve Spurrier after hearing about a rousing quote that a reporter attributed to Spurrier. http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/34297/clemsons-swinney-takes-shots-at-spurrier I'm obviously horribly biased, but what do ya'll think of this. Keep in mind our radio announcer (a huge homer guy) said it and not Spurrier.