NMR: CFB

Sketch · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:08 pm

And complicate the playoff possibilities further than y'all have? No thanks.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:12 pm

Yailvon Bloorsdale Wrote:

sketchyams with gunpowder Wrote:

Agreed with Derris about the need for a playoff system. If we cut conference automatic byes, though, conference championships become pretty meaningless. I'm personally OK with that, but we might as well expand the field to 12 or 16 and get rid of the conference championship games. It will at least be a compromise for the 'too many games' naysayers.

OR we could take the conference champions (yes, all of them), take the top 5 at-larges to fill out the field, and seed them according to BCS ranking. It's like March Madness but smaller.

Yail: OSU is ahead of Georgia because of the computer average, which favor current rankings vs. rankings at game time. Tennessee imploded after you beat them, and Boise State's schedule can't keep them up. Yes, Ohio State has two losses, but both losses are to teams in the BCS top 5 with one loss between them. UGA hasn't beaten anyone in the current top 25 and lost to a two-loss team (yes, they were 'Bama and LSU but still.) As Derris said, though, plenty of time left. You have two ranked opponents before the SEC championship game. Ohio State does also, but the Michgan game is never a sure thing.

Oh, I understand why...I just don't have to like it. :wink:

The Big 10(11) and Pac 10 both need to expand to 12 and have conference championship games.

The lack of a conference championship is ridiculous.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:26 pm

Bah. Just say NO to playoffs in college football, and I'm not too keen on the whole conference championship games thing, either.

shiv · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:37 pm

i thought this thread was going to be about cock fucking blocking.

MontyTheMongoose · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:00 am

oldbullee Wrote:

Yailvon Bloorsdale Wrote:

sketchyams with gunpowder Wrote:

Agreed with Derris about the need for a playoff system. If we cut conference automatic byes, though, conference championships become pretty meaningless. I'm personally OK with that, but we might as well expand the field to 12 or 16 and get rid of the conference championship games. It will at least be a compromise for the 'too many games' naysayers.

OR we could take the conference champions (yes, all of them), take the top 5 at-larges to fill out the field, and seed them according to BCS ranking. It's like March Madness but smaller.

Yail: OSU is ahead of Georgia because of the computer average, which favor current rankings vs. rankings at game time. Tennessee imploded after you beat them, and Boise State's schedule can't keep them up. Yes, Ohio State has two losses, but both losses are to teams in the BCS top 5 with one loss between them. UGA hasn't beaten anyone in the current top 25 and lost to a two-loss team (yes, they were 'Bama and LSU but still.) As Derris said, though, plenty of time left. You have two ranked opponents before the SEC championship game. Ohio State does also, but the Michgan game is never a sure thing.

Oh, I understand why...I just don't have to like it. :wink:

The Big 10(11) and Pac 10 both need to expand to 12 and have conference championship games.

The lack of a conference championship is ridiculous.

I heard a rumor about a year or so ago that the Pac-10 would be angling to pull UNLV and Utah from the Mountain West.

As for the Big 10 - I could only see it going twelve if the league could convince Notre Dame to leave the Big East, and join the Big 10 in all sports (inclusive football). That's not going to happen... So, no twelve in the midwest.

Promethium · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:39 am

Doesn't the Big XII already constitute a midwestern conference with 12 teams?

MontyTheMongoose · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:47 am

fightingliberal Wrote:

Doesn't the Big XII already constitute a midwestern conference with 12 teams?

Mmmkay... Rust-belt for Big 10, with Minnesota and Iowa tacked on for flava.

Sketch · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:19 pm

Norte Dame will never join a conference in all sports. The best breeding ground for Big Ten expansion is the MAC, and I don't think any of those schools have enough prowess across the their entire athletic program.

I don't mind Elvis Fu's take either. It ain't perfect (what is?), but a BCS without any conference tie-in is probably the best non-playoff scenario imaginable.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:24 pm

sketchyams with gunpowder Wrote:

I don't mind Elvis Fu's take either. It ain't perfect (what is?), but a BCS without any conference tie-in is probably the best non-playoff scenario imaginable.

Actually, I'm more in favor of just going back to the old bowl system.

*DUCKS*

rogneeb · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm **Posts:** 12618

i could see the Pac10 adding BYU and Utah perhaps.

Sketch · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:38 pm

Elvis Fu Wrote:

Actually, I'm more in favor of just going back to the old bowl system.

*DUCKS*

I would suspect fightingliberal would as well considering how '94 and '97 worked to his favor.

Promethium · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:11 pm

ESPN projections
Ivan Maisel:
Miami vs. Penn State in Orange
Notre Dame vs. Ohio State in Fiesta
Wisconsin vs. Georgia in Capital One
Texas Tech vs. LSU in Cotton
Iowa State vs. Tennessee in Independence
Oregon vs. OU in Holiday
Boston College vs. Nebraska in Champs Sports
Northwestern vs. South Carolina in Music City

Pat Forde:
only difference is:
LSU vs. WV in Sugar
Notre Dame vs. Alabama in Fiesta
Nebraska vs. TCU in Independence
Oregon vs. Northwestern in Sun
Michigan vs. OU in Alamo

Kingfish · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:12 pm

Ivan Maisel hates LSU and it's fans.

Promethium · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:27 pm

The system that was in place in 97, is essentially the same as the BCS minus the Big 10 and Pac-10. Nebraska won the USA Today/Coaches Poll, Michigan won the AP, it was similar to LSU and USC in 2003.
In 1994, Nebraska was number one in both polls for most of the year and secured the title with a bowl win. The thing that killed both Michigan and Penn State was that they played fairly mediocre Pac-10 opponents in the Rose Bowl. Michigan might have stole the game from Wazzu in 97, while Nebraska dominated Tennessee.
Nebraska has benefitted and has been screwed by the BCS. We made it to the national title game in the 2002 when we shouldn't have and might have been playing better than Virginia Tech in 1999 at the end of the year.

Sketch · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:36 pm

My main point is '94 and '97 were both years where today's BCS would have worked as designed.

'99 may not have fallen your way, but the Huskers seem to be getting favored more often than not. Nebraska almost lost to Miami in '94 while Penn State crushed a top-ten Oregon team, and they didn't even split. Nebraska was number 1 going in and won, so they should stay number one. OK, fine. Michigan '97 was number 1 going in. They won, and they have to split the title because they played a weaker opponent? I'll concede that Nebraska had the better bowl performance in '97, but the timing of Osborne's retirement announcement made it look like a plea for votes if they won. It should have been made before or after the season. Any other way is unnecessary and classless. I probably wouldn't have minded so much if '94 was a split, though.

In other news, that ESPN Orange Bowl prediction scares me.

Promethium · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:27 pm

Penn State played a 9-3 Oregon team who was ranked 12th in 1994 and won 38-20, Penn State was a 17 point favorite.
Nebraska played #3 Miami on their home field and won 24-17. I'll concede the fact that Nebraska had to come back to beat the Hurricanes in the 4th quarter, but that probably says more about how difficult their opponent was.

In 1997, Nebraska had been #1 until their questionable victory over Missouri in overtime and were punished in the polls, Michigan was rewarded at that time for thrashing Penn State. The only thing Michigan had over Nebraska was that they defeated Colorado by a larger margin than Nebraska did, but the Huskers played at Colorado late in the season, while Michigan played them at home for their first game.

Sketch · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:58 pm

Damn, you're good at this.

'94 Penn State had a similar situation to '97 Nebraska where they were number one for a while after beating Michigan and got knocked down again after beating Indiana by only 6 points (where the 2nd/3rd string defense gave up two touchdowns late in the game). You could argue that even without they would have gotten knocked down anyway after the comeback victory against Illinois. They had control of their destiny in a sense, and they blew it. I could have sworn Oregon being ranked 8th at game time. Minor point, I guess.

The only pro-Nebraska point in both years is the stronger bowl opponent. Maybe that's enough to justify the different outcomes in the two years in question, but I don't have to like it.

Promethium · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:12 pm

I never felt bad about Nebraska winning the 1994 title outright because Penn State and some bad officials screwed Nebraska out of a title in 1982. According to most replays of the game now, a Penn State receiver caught a key pass way out of bounds and the game winning TD supposedly hit the ground.
Nebraska ended up beating LSU in the Orange Bowl. They would play them three times in six years for bowl games, winning every time.

Here is a site that states what polls voted who #1 from 1869 to present.
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_footb ... hamps.html

Sketch · **Posted:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:08 am

Great link! Thanks for that.

NMR: CFB

Who is online