College Football 2006

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-12-04 11:58am

A lot of this wrangling and hair-pulling could be dispensed with, as well as the perceived need for a playoff system, if instead of the dual-polls a points system for each win/loss was instituted. A scale to determine the value for either defeating a high-ranked team or losing to a lower-ranked one for the allocation or subtraction of quality-points can easily be formulated, and initial rankings for each season can be based on the finishing rankings for the previous one. You'll still wind up with controversies but at least one source for it —the highly subjective and biased coaches and sportswriters polls— would be eliminated and rankings would be put on a far more logical mathematical basis.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2006-12-04 11:58am

It's funny but the polls I've been seeing don't seem to expect most of the BCS games to be very good. Most people are predicting blow outs.

OSU over Florida
Michigan over USC
Oklahoma over Boise State
LSU over Notre Dame
Lousiville over Wake Forest.

Speaking of asskickings in the making. I see that Iowa is going to play Texas in a the Alamo Bowl.

How did Texas get stuck playing a 6-6 team in a bowl game? Iowa is certainly capable of playing better than what their record is but even at their best this year I wouldn't give them much of a chance against Texas playing at or near what they are capable. Still, maybe well get lucky and have a repeat of the 1984 Freedom Bowl (Iowa 55, Texas 17).

Yeah, I don't think so either.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-12-04 12:01pm

Patrick Degan wrote:A lot of this wrangling and hair-pulling could be dispensed with, as well as the perceived need for a playoff system, if instead of the dual-polls a points system for each win/loss was instituted. A scale to determine the value for either defeating a high-ranked team or losing to a lower-ranked one for the allocation or subtraction of quality-points can easily be formulated, and initial rankings for each season can be based on the finishing rankings for the previous one. You'll still wind up with controversies but at least one source for it —the highly subjective and biased coaches and sportswriters polls— would be eliminated and rankings would be put on a far more logical mathematical basis.

That would work to. Basically, a system is neccessary--a cold objective machine that pulls its reasoning from a list we can all look at and know where we stand. Take the human element right out of there.

Still, I pine for an eight team playoff. There's still a lot of teams that would have equal records on the outside looking in, but if enough tiebreaker rules are instituted (including a final solution coin toss!), there won't be any more questions. Just like the NFL, the way things are set up less deserving teams make it into the playoffs while better teams watch, but at least the whole thing was determined fairly and objectively.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2006-12-04 12:14pm

I'd like to see the playoff teams be the winners of their conferences with each conference either having it's own championship game or requiring each team in the conference to play all of the others in the conference.

Notre Dame (and any other independent) would have to play football as part of a conference if they wanted into the playoff and the Big-10 would either need to add a team and have a championship game or come up with a way for all eleven teams to play each other. (None of this 11-1 Wisconsin not playing OSU, or a few years ago the same thing but with Iowa and OSU).

This would keep conference championships important while also acting as a defacto playoff before the playoff. One thing I rather dislike about the NCAA basketball tournament is that it's just not that important for a team to win their conference. Sure it's nice, and some times necessary for a bid, but an awful lot of teams make it in without even being close to winning their respective conferences. The tournament is fun as it but degrades the conference championships.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-12-04 12:21pm

Sure, conference championships are good. There aren't eight top conferences from which to cull these teams, though, which is fine since you need at-large bids too. No way should Michigan at 11-1 miss a playoff because OSU ran the table, while a team with two or three losses gets in because of a weaker conference.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2006-12-04 12:29pm

Fair enough.

The conference thing could also help teams from tough conferences get into the tournament despite beating the crap out of each other.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-12-04 09:16pm

At this point I await the reminder of why we took strength of schedule out. Then this whole thing would be academic, as Florida needed acts of FSM to escape three or four of their games. Luck ends, eventually. Talent perseveres.

Fuck Florida.

CarsonPalmer · Post by **CarsonPalmer** » 2006-12-04 09:29pm

I really don't see the need for a playoff system, or even a clear-cut, well-defined national champ. Let there be two polls, twenty mathematical systems, newspaper rankings, whatever. Hell, let's have an endless stream of disputed national championships. Let the Pac-10 face the Big 10 every year in the Rose Bowl. Bring the bowl's back to New Year's Day. More often than not, you'll get one undefeated team standing at the end of the year, anyway. When you don't, you have a summerlong arguement, and a storyline leading into next season. If you go to a playoff, you destroy everything that makes college football college football.

Going to a playoff costs you the bowl system. No longer will you see games like Boston College-Fresno State out in the Silicon Valley. No longer will you have 8-2 teams battling it out for the Big 10 Championship, eliminated from the national championship race, playing because its the goddamn Big 10, and that's bigger than being number 1. You won't get sixteen teams going home happy because they ended their season with a bowl win. Instead, you get 1. In the end, what's wrong with more college kids celebrating a great season.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2006-12-04 09:33pm

USC vs. Michigan is the only decent game on the schedule. Although USC deserves to get a whooping for their choke to UCLA ruining what would have been a good national title game (and I LIKE USC), Michigan fans might even think of it as an opportunity for revenge for the Rose Bowl butt kicking back in 2003.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-12-04 09:40pm

Tsyroc wrote:Oklahoma over Boise State

They pitted BS University against Oklahoma? This is revenge for Utah in 2004, isn't it?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-12-04 10:55pm

CarsonPalmer wrote:I really don't see the need for a playoff system, or even a clear-cut, well-defined national champ. Let there be two polls, twenty mathematical systems, newspaper rankings, whatever. Hell, let's have an endless stream of disputed national championships. Let the Pac-10 face the Big 10 every year in the Rose Bowl. Bring the bowl's back to New Year's Day. More often than not, you'll get one undefeated team standing at the end of the year, anyway. When you don't, you have a summerlong arguement, and a storyline leading into next season. If you go to a playoff, you destroy everything that makes college football college football.

Going to a playoff costs you the bowl system. No longer will you see games like Boston College-Fresno State out in the Silicon Valley. No longer will you have 8-2 teams battling it out for the Big 10 Championship, eliminated from the national championship race, playing because its the goddamn Big 10, and that's bigger than being number 1. You won't get sixteen teams going home happy because they ended their season with a bowl win. Instead, you get 1. In the end, what's wrong with more college kids celebrating a great season.

And there is one of the reasons why it can be argued that a playoff would be detrimental to college football. That emotionalism, the controversies, the endless debates over who was really Number 1 this year or that and who ended their seasons in a decent bowl appearance is a large part of what generates the interest in the college game, and therefore keeps the TV ratings up, the fan interest alive, and the attendances at live games to full-house capacaties. Which translates into healthy TV and gate revenues and a powerful tool to use come recruiting time each and every year. Under the current (and previous) system, you have a dozen winners at the end of the year. A playoff will get you one winner and nineteen losers and being one of the losers from X year is not going to help when it comes to recruiting. Particularly if you have most schools never reaching the National Championship Game™ year after year after year.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-12-04 10:56pm

CarsonPalmer wrote:I really don't see the need for a playoff system, or even a clear-cut, well-defined national champ. Let there be two polls, twenty mathematical systems, newspaper rankings, whatever. Hell, let's have an endless stream of disputed national championships. Let the Pac-10 face the Big 10 every year in the Rose Bowl. Bring the bowl's back to New Year's Day. More often than not, you'll get one undefeated team standing at the end of the year, anyway. When you don't, you have a summerlong arguement, and a storyline leading into next season. If you go to a playoff, you destroy everything that makes college football college football.

Going to a playoff costs you the bowl system. No longer will you see games like Boston College-Fresno State out in the Silicon Valley. No longer will you have 8-2 teams battling it out for the Big 10 Championship, eliminated from the national championship race, playing because its the goddamn Big 10, and that's bigger than being number 1. You won't get sixteen teams going home happy because they ended their season with a bowl win. Instead, you get 1. In the end, what's wrong with more college kids celebrating a great season.

Nonsense. Go back to four BCS bowls. Let the voters decide who goes to the (fifth game) National Championship, out of the four winners of the BCS bowls.

This makes it effectively somewhere between a four- and eight-team playoff. Bowl structure is not lost. In fact, tradition is reasserted.

Darth Quorthon · Post by **Darth Quorthon** » 2006-12-04 11:33pm

I opened the paper today and looked at the betting lines on the bowls. LSU is an early 9-point favorite over Notre Dame. If Notre Dame can keep it that close, I'll be happy. I was surprised to see that the line for the Rose Bowl is Michigan 1.5 over USC. I'm looking for Michigan to come out raging-mad, looking to take out their frustration on the Trojans, handing USC their third straight loss at the Rose Bowl. How much longer does the BCS contract run? And how much would one of the bowls refusing to re-join it louse up the whole system? I wouldn't be surprised to see the traditional bowl matchups make a return.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-12-05 12:42am

I'll echo a bit of what Degan said because it will remain the one thing which defines college football: money. The money in football is with boosters willing to spend enourmous sums of money, TV networks shelling out the moola and athletic programs puffing their chest about what they've accomplished this year. If you institute a real playoff system and have one winner then you take the controversy away. You eliminate all but one team's ability to puff their chest and then the debates become little academic side bars about if this team played that team who would have won. College Football has such dissproportionate strength across the spectrum that you simply can't get the kind of "anyone can win any sunday" mentality that comes with the pros nor can you get the incredible magic of March Madness because the playoff would involve much fewer teams and natrually eliminate the chance for cinderella stories to develop. The public identity of college football is rooted in partisan bickerin between fans of various schools who think they should be number one and if you take that away then after a few years you are going to see a shift which could honestly shake the roots of the system and ADs are NOT going to take the chance that their funding dollars and their TV contract money will dry up when that kind of a shift happens.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-12-05 09:50am

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Why did Florida jump Michigan? Besides crybaby Urban Meyer slimy peddling for the Gators, it comes down to two reasons:

Slimy peddling? The man may be a coach but he can express his opinion and state that a rematch sucks. Especially when everyone in the cosmos has been pondering the same thing. And I was calling for a USC-OSU championship before they lost for the same reason. At least when this happened in UF's history - 1996 vs. FSU - it wasn't back-to-back with the bowl. The objective computer rankings put us neck and neck and no one but Ann Arbor knobslobbers want to see a complete rehash of the last game Michigan and OSU just played. Michigan got their shot, and blew it. Better luck next year.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-12-05 09:52am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Michigan got their shot, and blew it.

Which would be great if that's what the objective of the BCS was at all. "To pick the top two teams in the nation... unless it's a rematch."

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-12-05 09:54am

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Michigan got their shot, and blew it.
Which would be great if that's what the objective of the BCS was at all. "To pick the top two teams in the nation... unless it's a rematch."

And legitimately what are the variables in this game different from the game you just lost?

Besides, you're wrong. The objective of the BCS is to make money for networks. Seeing a total repeat of the last game is contrary to that goal.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-12-05 10:00am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:And legitimately what are the variables in this game different from the game you just lost?

Neutral site, good old fashioned luck? A three point margin of victory doesn't exactly close the book on whose number one.

Besides, you're wrong. The objective of the BCS is to make money for networks.

Fine, "Which would be great if that's what the objective of the rankings was at all."

Seeing a total repeat of the last game is contrary to that goal.

Oh trust me, I know what UF-OSU is all about. That doesn't mean Florida should be the legitimate number two.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2006-12-05 05:03pm

There is only one place in the world where Florida vs. OSU will generate more interest than a rematch between Michigan and OSU, and that's Florida.

Anyone who says that nobody is interested in a rematch should take a look at the fact that Buckeyes/Wolverines is the most fierce and heated rivalry with more notability than any other (outside of Yankees and Red Sox). That fact alone would draw in many more viewers, such as myself, who will not even pay any attention to the Gators/Buckeyes save to check the score.

Florida should not be rewarded for soft scheduling in the non conference schedule.

And I didn't hear as much of the "Didn't even win the conference" garbage when Nebraska or Oklahoma BOTH reached the national title game. Nebraska who got thunked by Colorado and Oklahoma who got beaten by KSU.

There should be a playoff. BCS conferences could drop one or two puff games from their schedules early on to make room for the extra game or two at the end of the season necessary. An eight team playoff.

For the people that try and make the Academics argument, I-AA (now Division I) have been doing playoffs for how long now with better graduation rates than I-A schools?

At least with the old "Bowl Alliance" there wasn't any bullshit surrounding a system that didn't work.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2006-12-05 06:12pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:There is only one place in the world where Florida vs. OSU will generate more interest than a rematch between Michigan and OSU, and that's Florida.

You're probably right. I don't expect any of the bowl games to be better than this year's OSU/Michigan game.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Anyone who says that nobody is interested in a rematch should take a look at the fact that Buckeyes/Wolverines is the most fierce and heated rivalry with more notability than any other (outside of Yankees and Red Sox). That fact alone would draw in many more viewers, such as myself, who will not even pay any attention to the Gators/Buckeyes save to check the score.

I'm still not interested in a remach. If they'd played in the middle of the season then maybe, but deserving or not I just don't like giving a team a second shot at a team they already lost to so recently and then saying that the second game counts more than the prevsious win/loss. I know it happens in other sports all the time but it just bugs me. Personally I felt that Florida's previous "national championship" win over FSU was rather lame for the same reason.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Florida should not be rewarded for soft scheduling in the non conference schedule.

I wasn't aware they were. Even if their non conference schedule was weaker than Michigan's, this year the Big 10 crapiness evened things out a little. At least Michigan played Wisconsin and Ohio State but I think the SEC trumps that. Now if Notre Dame wins their bowl game I might have to reassess things a bit but so far I still consider them overrated.

Darth Fanboy wrote:And I didn't hear as much of the "Didn't even win the conference" garbage when Nebraska or Oklahoma BOTH reached the national title game. Nebraska who got thunked by Colorado and Oklahoma who got beaten by KSU.

I think there were plenty of complaints at the time, or at least a lack of enthusiasm for the "National Championship" game. Also, wasn't the Rose Bowl still outside the BCS at the time? I keep thinking that for at least one of those games they were kind of stuck with who they could get.

Darth Fanboy wrote:There should be a playoff. BCS conferences could drop one or two puff games from their schedules early on to make room for the extra game or two at the end of the season necessary. An eight team playoff.

Agreed. Plus I still like the idea of using a conference championship to pare things down a bit. Sure there can be some at large bids but I like to see conference championships count for automatic playoff bids.

Darth Fanboy wrote:For the people that try and make the Academics argument, I-AA (now Division I) have been doing playoffs for how long now with better graduation rates than I-A schools?

The acedemics argument is complete BS. I've lived near a college which won several back to back championships in football at a level where there were no scholarships. So if those guys can play in a tournament then so can the big boys.

Darth Fanboy wrote:At least with the old "Bowl Alliance" there wasn't any bullshit surrounding a system that didn't work.

I kind of liked the "Bowl Aliance" better than what we've got now too. One of my co-workers mistakenly thought the BCS championship game was a week later this year so they could match up the two top ranked teams after all the other bowls were done. Essentially a one game playoff to deal with teams whining about being excluded etc... I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the winner of Florida vs Michigan going against OSU if such was the case.

You know another thing that I think is fucked up about the BCS championship? It's held in the Cardinal's new stadium one week after the Fiesta Bowl is held there. WTF? If the BCS championship game isn't going to be in one of the 4 major bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta,... how did the Fiesta weasle in there and knock out the Cotton? ) then why did the people behind those bowls sign up for the BCS anyway?

I can't see how those bowls are making more money by being garunteed to not have the championship game unless they all get to split the money from the BCS championship game.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-12-05 06:15pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Michigan got their shot, and blew it.
Which would be great if that's what the objective of the BCS was at all. "To pick the top two teams in the nation... unless it's a rematch."
And legitimately what are the variables in this game different from the game you just lost?

They won't wait until the second half to play this time.

CarsonPalmer · Post by **CarsonPalmer** » 2006-12-05 08:22pm

To be fair to OSU, why should they have to beat Michigan twice, wheras the Wolverines only have win once?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-12-05 08:59pm

Because it's the national championship game. The same logic could be applied to a conference title game.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-12-05 11:44pm

Howedar wrote:Because it's the national championship game. The same logic could be applied to a conference title game.

Or any playoff match for that matter.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2007-01-01 07:20pm

West Virginia 38, Georgia Tech 35.

Another season of promise for the Yellow Jackets, ends in a wimper.

Oh and Taylor Bennet has produced the best Quarterback performance from a GT QB for the past 2 years, on his second start.

Interesting....