College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5? - Page 42

bronconick · 11-03-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrierbyassociation

Everyone thinks its stupid. Teams shouldn't be ranked until Week 4-5 at least.

Oregon got screwed a few years earlier, Kepler.

And in news that should make bronconick and CHA happy, FSU defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews is going to retire.

Knew that was coming. They had to beg him to come back this year. He probably wishes he hadn't, based on the defensive statistics. Just another part of the utter clusterfark in Tallahassee.

blockski · 11-03-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrierbyassociation

I thought I read an article pointing out if the polls had placed Auburn second to start the season or third, they would have finished second overall in the BCS.

That assumes that the polls would have kept the relative relationship between Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma intact.

Granted, they usually do, but not always. Teams do shift without losing.

The polls have more weight, but they also confirmed what the computer rankings said.

Again, if you had to chose just two, taking USC and Oklahoma was fairly uncontroversial. If they were seeding for a playoff, nobody would care that Auburn was #3.

Terrierbyassociation · 11-03-2009, 05:03 PM

Oh I agree. IMO USC and OU were the best two teams in the country that year.

BoomGoestheDynamite · 11-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrierbyassociation

Oh I agree. IMO USC and OU were the best two teams in the country that year.

Auburn in part screwed themselves that year by scheduling in typical gutless SEC OOC fashion. After taking it from USC and Ga Tech the year before they went out and scheduled an FCS and two Sunbelt squads for 2004. You reap what you sow.

bigblue_dl · 11-03-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrierbyassociation

One of the big problems in years past is the former Pac-10 commissioner was very anti-playoffs because of the Rose Bowl.

That needs to change. Too bad the Pac-10's new commissioner is the former head of the WTA.

He probably has no idea what to do either. But until the conferences that keep getting screwed stand up and make a stink its not going to bother the conferences who enjoy the BCS (Big 12 and SEC.)

On Saturday I was listening to ESPN Radio and they interviewed the new Pac-10 commissioner and posed the playoff question to him. He said straight up that he doesn't want to go to a playoff and the the BCS is the best system out there. So it doesn't sound like he'll be pushing for a change any time soon.

Terrierbyassociation · 11-03-2009, 05:59 PM

Wonderful. Good plan Pac-10!

New pac-10 commish is already shaping up to be worse than the previous one.

His brutal decision to send the #2 Pac 10 team to Texas instead of San Diego is baffling.

BoomGoestheDynamite · 11-03-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrierbyassociation

Wonderful. Good plan Pac-10!

New pac-10 commish is already shaping up to be worse than the previous one.

His brutal decision to send the #2 Pac 10 team to Texas instead of San Diego is baffling.

I never thought they could find someone more incompetent than Tom Hansen. I was wrong.

Terrierbyassociation · 11-03-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoomGoestheDynamite

I never thought they could find someone more incompetent than Tom Hansen. I was wrong.

Well its nice when you look to the WTA for your next commish...what was the LPGA head not available? What about another league that would prepare you for being a conference head?

Proud2baLaker · 11-03-2009, 09:17 PM

So Micheal Floyd is expected back for Notre Dame vs Navy. He was cleared by team doctors on Monday. If he can stay healthy Notre Dame may have one of the best 1-2 punches at wide receiver in the country.

GreatLakerMohawk · 11-04-2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigblue_dl

On Saturday I was listening to ESPN Radio and they interviewed the new Pac-10 commissioner and posed the playoff question to him. He said straight up that he doesn't want to go to a playoff and the the BCS is the best system out there. So it doesn't sound like he'll be pushing for a change any time soon.

He knows who butters his bread.

LynahFan · 11-04-2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigmrg74

Everybody keeps forgetting that Cincinnatti is in the Big East and thus, a BCS member.

Others yes, me - no. Check out my post #801. I specifically left Cincinnati off my list even though PrezedeJohnson09 mentioned them in #793... Plus I can never remember how to spell it, so it's easier just not to discuss them! (which is probably what the BCS committee would prefer, too).

alfablue · 11-04-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LynahFan

Others yes, me - no. Check out my post #801. I specifically left Cincinnati off my list even though PrezedeJohnson09 mentioned them in #793... Plus I can never remember how to spell it, so it's easier just not to discuss them! (which is probably what the BCS committee would prefer, too).

Since I'm an enginerd, I have the same problem. So the answer is UC. Not to be confused with UC Berkely- which we all call Cal. Besides, who else in the top 20 is UC?

JF_Gophers · 11-04-2009, 08:25 AM

The BCS would work a little better if BCS conferences were required to have conference title games.

That would help eliminate some extra contenders (i know it didn't help the Big 12 last year).

Then the second thing would be to modify the BCS to select the playoff teams. Even if its only the top 4 (1 extra football week). Keep all your bowls and get that extra game. There is no loser in that format as far as money.

Kepler · 11-04-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proud2baLaker

So Micheal Floyd is expected back for Notre Dame vs Navy. He was cleared by team doctors on Monday. If he can stay healthy Notre Dame may have one of the best 1-2 punches at wide receiver in the country.

They're fun to watch, and they really stretch the field.

amherstblackbear · 11-04-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF_Gophers

The BCS would work a little better if BCS conferences were required to have conference title games.

That would help eliminate some extra contenders (i know it didn't help the Big 12 last year).

Then the second thing would be to modify the BCS to select the playoff teams. Even if its only the top 4 (1 extra football week). Keep all your bowls and get that extra game. There is no loser in that format as far as money.

I agree with the diagnosis, but not the prescription.

Lose the conference title games.

bronconick · 11-04-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF_Gophers

The BCS would work a little better if BCS conferences were required to have conference title games.

That would help eliminate some extra contenders (i know it didn't help the Big 12 last year).

Then the second thing would be to modify the BCS to select the playoff teams. Even if its only the top 4 (1 extra football week). Keep all your bowls and get that extra game. There is no loser in that format as far as money.

That'd only work if you force fed every conference up to 12 teams, which would be amusing to watch everyone scramble for the 7 available slots in the 6 BCS conferences.

Hammer · 11-04-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amherstblackbear

Lose the conference title games.

Exactly. Conference games are nothing but the leagues whoring themselves out for more money. Don't fool yourself otherwise.

pirate · 11-04-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kepler

They're fun to watch, and they really stretch the field.

If they can put their top 11 on the field for a few games and the D matures in the new system they have struggled with to date, they could be a much better team at bowl time than they have been all year...some teams peak early, some just don't get better, having Floyd out forced them to do more than throw the Go route every 6 plays, his return to a team that can run the ball, employs the 'cat' offense and might be playing better defense bodes well - how's that for optimism?

JF_Gophers · 11-04-2009, 12:53 PM

Losing the conference title game would allow multiple undefeated teams in one conference, which is what you are trying to avoid. If you can eliminate a team from the playoff process before the BCS starts, all the better.

BoomGoestheDynamite · 11-04-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF_Gophers

Losing the conference title game would allow multiple undefeated teams in one conference, which is what you are trying to avoid. If you can eliminate a team from the playoff process before the BCS starts, all the better.

Not really. You just have to cut down the super conferences by two teams and have everyone play a true round robin (see the Pac 10, Big East). The only conference that can currently produce multiple undefeated teams is the Big 10.