Yes , but the problem is keeping them down there ...
NO Jimbo, the problem is keeping them out of jail.
NO Jimbo, the problem is keeping them out of jail.
BCS is a joke again
- Thread starter jlhugh
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 91
- Views 10K
Oh really? I don't think so??
2007 BCS National Championship Game
Date: Jan 8th, 2007
City: Glendale, AZ
Until this game is over TEXAS are the champs!
Nah...you are the champs until beaten, and that happened on Sept 9th. ( I had Texas #1 for that reason at the start of the season even though losing VY was HUGE!!)
Texas has a long way to climb back up (thanks to the computers...ie TX schedule). A USC and Michigan loss is a must, plus will need to make sure that Florida or Auburn doesn't finished with one loss. Also, a undefeated WVU or Louisville may also get the nod (no computer love for either school but will get poll love at season's end).
Not to mention that OSU would most likely have to lose TWO game to be jumped by Texas.
Neb and Tx AM should help in the computers, but you may have a repeat game in the B12 title game, which never helps rankings wise. Tx really needs to make a statement in Lincoln to spark up the voters. If you really think about it. their biggest positive for the year is losing to OSU and a win against a down OU team ( nice game BTW) Raking up points against the small schools is one thing, it now needs to be done agaist the big boys.
Is there still a chance to repeat....YES..... but your claim to the top disappeared when you lost.
Its sort of the same reason some voters vote the defending champ #1 in the pre-season, cause they consider them the champs until they lose. Well, it happened
Man,
I am having trouble keeping the two or three subject straight in this thread.
Paul said :
Yes , but the problem is keeping them down there ...
NO Jimbo, the problem is keeping them out of jail.
Didn't have a quote with it so I don't know where that came from ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by BlackHitachi View Post
Oh really? I don't think so??
2007 BCS National Championship Game
Date: Jan 8th, 2007
City: Glendale, AZ
Until this game is over TEXAS are the champs!
scottc98 mentioned :
Nah...you are the champs until beaten, and that happened on Sept 9th. ( I had Texas #1 for that reason at the start of the season even though losing VY was HUGE!!)
Technically TEXAS IS the National Champs until the next National Championship game,
However that doesn't mean they have to be the number one team, seeing they have been beat.
Now IF they can work thier way back to the top, then they can defend it...
Unfortunatly for them, a lot of help would be needed ... but anything is possible.
Thats why they play the games ...... Who would have thought that Indiana would beat Iowa...
Jimbo
I am having trouble keeping the two or three subject straight in this thread.
Paul said :
Yes , but the problem is keeping them down there ...
NO Jimbo, the problem is keeping them out of jail.
Didn't have a quote with it so I don't know where that came from ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by BlackHitachi View Post
Oh really? I don't think so??
2007 BCS National Championship Game
Date: Jan 8th, 2007
City: Glendale, AZ
Until this game is over TEXAS are the champs!
scottc98 mentioned :
Nah...you are the champs until beaten, and that happened on Sept 9th. ( I had Texas #1 for that reason at the start of the season even though losing VY was HUGE!!)
Technically TEXAS IS the National Champs until the next National Championship game,
However that doesn't mean they have to be the number one team, seeing they have been beat.
Now IF they can work thier way back to the top, then they can defend it...
Unfortunatly for them, a lot of help would be needed ... but anything is possible.
Thats why they play the games ...... Who would have thought that Indiana would beat Iowa...
Jimbo
Jimbo,
I can agree with that definition, but i'd go a little futher. You are the champs until you are no longer in a position to defend your title. Texas is technically in that position, so I guess you can say they are still champs. IF texas was 4-3 instead of 6-1, then I'd say they are no longer champs IMO.
Think of it like Boxing: Texas is the champs: Has a belt but if it doesn't face its mandatory challenger, then it will be stripped and the two top contenders will fight for the title. During the time between the strip and the fight, there is no champ in boxing for that belt.
BTW....never in a millions years (indiana over Iowa)
I can agree with that definition, but i'd go a little futher. You are the champs until you are no longer in a position to defend your title. Texas is technically in that position, so I guess you can say they are still champs. IF texas was 4-3 instead of 6-1, then I'd say they are no longer champs IMO.
Think of it like Boxing: Texas is the champs: Has a belt but if it doesn't face its mandatory challenger, then it will be stripped and the two top contenders will fight for the title. During the time between the strip and the fight, there is no champ in boxing for that belt.
BTW....never in a millions years (indiana over Iowa)
Jimbo,
I can agree with that definition, but i'd go a little futher. You are the champs until you are no longer in a position to defend your title. Texas is technically in that position, so I guess you can say they are still champs. IF texas was 4-3 instead of 6-1, then I'd say they are no longer champs IMO.
Think of it like Boxing: Texas is the champs: Has a belt but if it doesn't face its mandatory challenger, then it will be stripped and the two top contenders will fight for the title. During the time between the strip and the fight, there is no champ in boxing for that belt.
BTW....never in a millions years (indiana over Iowa)
Actually, boxing would have a solution for that problem ....
They would make another title for the occasion :shocked
Sorry Jimbo, I was referencing your quote from post#20 (this thread). Maybe just a poor attempt at humor.
I got ya now, they never end up in jail anyways, normally suspended sentance to be served AFTER the season...
Ya, I' ve saying that for a LONG long time now. I like my idea, the media thinks its to long.
I want a 16 team playoff. 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 like the sweet 16 in college BB.
They complain that they can't take kids out of school that long well that BS, they do it for BB all the time.
Besides it would only involve the top 16 teams and the top 8 after the first weekend and so forth.
The top 6 conference winners (maybe 5 if they evenually drop the big East) and fill the other 10 spots by ranking, BCS or ap or whatever, you can usually tell who belongs and who doesn't ..... each top bowl would have a game the first week and pair it down from there...
They should start it on the first weekend in December, (get rid of the Conference championship games, if there are good enugh they will be in the top 16 anyways)
Starting the first week of December would eliminate the advantage that the ND's and USC and the Conference championship games have....
I am talking about the fact that by the time Michigan and Ohio State get done with their season they have at laeast a 5 week lay off till thier next game, think they might be a little rusty against a team that has played into the 2 nd week in December ?
Of course Ohio State didn't show it against ND last year, just think, it might have been worse .....
IF Ohio State or Michigan goes to the National Champioship game January 8th, they would be off for
50 DAYS ...........
Jimbo
Last edited:
The other divisions of college football have playoffs, so their argument doesn't hold water. The big problem is the devalueing of the bowl games, which could still remain as the booby prize they are for all the also-rans. A playoff for division 1 would be one of the biggest things in sports. The championship game would probably rival the super bowl. (At least in the USA.) Even a plus 1 for the BCS (top two teams playing a championship game after the 5 BCS games) would be an improvement.
Well...a playoff could keep the bowls in place....just for the non-playoff teams. While a 16 team playoff would be ideal, a 12 team (where top 4 get byes in 1st round) would be enough. 6 auto bids (BCS conf champs) + 1 top non-bcs conf champ + 5 at-large (same bcs rule; i.e no more than 2 conf teams allowed in playoff). Use final BCS rankings for seeds and at large teams.
1st 2 rounds at home field of higher seed, semi and finals at BCS bowl sites (you could add a 3rd place game so all 4 BCS bowls have a game each year)
Also, after the 1st round, teams are re-ordered to benefit the higher seeds (i.e NHL playoff style). That should hold more integraty for the reg season. You'd be fighting for a bye and provide easiest games for the top team.
If today's BCS rankings were the final, the seeds would go as followed:
1-OSU (b10 champ)
2-USC (pac 10 champ)
3-MICH (at-large)
4-Auburn (SEC champ)
5-WVU (BE champ)
6-Florida (at-large)
7-Louiville (at-large)
8-ND (atlarge)
9-Texas (b12 champ)
10- CAL (At-large)
11-Clemson (ACC champ)
12-Boise St (auto non-conf champ)
For example sake, top ranked conf team was designated as champ. Tenn would be left out for 2 reasons (2 teams from conf already qualified; No more at-large bids due to auto non-bcs bid & Clemson auto bid for ACC title)
1st round would be 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9. After those results, lowest remaining seed plays #1, next lowest plays #2, etc.
What do you think? (format wise; data used was just for example)
1st 2 rounds at home field of higher seed, semi and finals at BCS bowl sites (you could add a 3rd place game so all 4 BCS bowls have a game each year)
Also, after the 1st round, teams are re-ordered to benefit the higher seeds (i.e NHL playoff style). That should hold more integraty for the reg season. You'd be fighting for a bye and provide easiest games for the top team.
If today's BCS rankings were the final, the seeds would go as followed:
1-OSU (b10 champ)
2-USC (pac 10 champ)
3-MICH (at-large)
4-Auburn (SEC champ)
5-WVU (BE champ)
6-Florida (at-large)
7-Louiville (at-large)
8-ND (atlarge)
9-Texas (b12 champ)
10- CAL (At-large)
11-Clemson (ACC champ)
12-Boise St (auto non-conf champ)
For example sake, top ranked conf team was designated as champ. Tenn would be left out for 2 reasons (2 teams from conf already qualified; No more at-large bids due to auto non-bcs bid & Clemson auto bid for ACC title)
1st round would be 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9. After those results, lowest remaining seed plays #1, next lowest plays #2, etc.
What do you think? (format wise; data used was just for example)
Scott, why not just make it 16 teams? Why lose the rvenue from the 4 additioan games? Otherwise, I think plan is just fine. Now we just have to convince the NCAA.
Great system Scottc98, too bad university presidents are so freakin short sighted.
I don't feel bad for Tennessee at all, not since they cheated against Ohio State in their Bowl game in 1996.
It was cold and the field was slick, Tenessee equiped their players with shoes that had illegal cleats, they were too long. Tennessee got caught inthe third quarter but the NCAA did nothing about it.
Come to think about it I have no respect for the NCAA at all.
I don't feel bad for Tennessee at all, not since they cheated against Ohio State in their Bowl game in 1996.
It was cold and the field was slick, Tenessee equiped their players with shoes that had illegal cleats, they were too long. Tennessee got caught inthe third quarter but the NCAA did nothing about it.
Come to think about it I have no respect for the NCAA at all.
The presidents will continue to hide behind the pretence of athlete-academics, What a joke, time to recognize athletic programs for the revenue machines they really are. I wan't a playoff system!
HERE, HERE !!!!
All rise and place your VOTE,
although we know it won't do any good !!!!
Similar threads
