COLLEGE FOOTBALL 2007

[jkrdevil]

I agree. A team must be required to win a conference to have any shot at a national title game.

There's your Notre Dame bias again. Look obviously ND shouldn't play for the National Championship this year but to prevent them from ever just because they are an independent is ridiculous. I agree if you are a member of a conference you should have to win your conference championship (How can you be the best team in the country but not in your conference). However independents should still have a shot at the National Title as they could very well be the best team in the country.

No bias here. I'm just being logical. Obviously, to be the best team in the country, you have to win your conference, yes? I mean, if Notre Dame was unbeaten this year, you'd still love to see that OSU/Florida national title game.

Unless of course you are an independent in which you do not belong to a conference which means you can't win a conference championship. So in that case although an independent team is not a conference champion they can still be the best team in the country. Unless you fail to grasp that simple concept.

So If Notre Dame would have gone undefeated this year they would have every right to play for the National Champion. I personally believe you can't exlude any school from the chance of winning the national title based on conference affliation or lack therefor. Which is exactly what you did. Based on your comments in the past your were careful to phrase your conference champion rule the way you did to exclude Notre Dame (and all other independents).

And before you say it yes I believe Boise State should play Ohio State for the national chmapionship as they are both the only DI-A schools that are undefeated.

[Epiphanic]

I don't think the fact that Notre Dame doesn't have a conference necessarily precludes them from a National Title spot. The fact that they are an independent means that they need to be compared to the other conference champions like others. You can look at their entire schedule as a "conference schedule" if you wish.

[WJMorris3]

Time to look at it yet again.

TITLE GAME: #1 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ) v #2 USC (Pac-10 Champ)

Rose Bowl: #3 Michigan (At-Large/AQ) v #5 LSU (At-Large)

Sugar Bowl: #4 Florida (SEC Leader) v #6 Louisville (At-Large)

Orange Bowl: #22 Georgia Tech (ACC Leader) v #8 Boise State (At-Large/AQ)

Fiesta Bowl: #12 Oklahoma (Big XII Leader) v #13 Rutgers (Big East Leader)

Explanations:

Florida is considered the SEC leader due to being ranked higher than Arkansas.

Rutgers is considered the Big East leader because of their win over Louisville.

By rule, the at-large bids must include #8 Boise State (top 12 and non-BCS) and #3 Michigan (#3 and Big Ten at-large not in title game).

National title game takes #1 Ohio State and #2 USC.

Sugar Bowl gets #4 Florida, Orange Bowl gets #22 Georgia Tech, and Fiesta Bowl gets #12 Oklahoma, per contractual obligations.

Since the Rose Bowl lost both Ohio State and USC to the title game, they have the first two choices of remaining teams. They take #3 Michigan and #5 LSU.

Then the Sugar Bowl has a selection. They take #6 Louisville.

The Orange Bowl then takes #8 Boise State.

Finally, the Fiesta Bowl takes #13 Rutgers.

As a final see it now, here's what I see happening that could change this next week.

First off, the easy ones. Should Nebraska or Wake Forest win this week, they would replace Oklahoma or Georgia Tech in their respective spots.

Should Arkansas beat Florida, Arkansas will play in the Sugar Bowl. If the game is close, however, there might be a chance that Florida will steal LSU's at-large bid.

Should either Rutgers or Louisville fail to win, then most likely, the Big East will only get one bid, with Notre Dame being the most logical choice to get a BCS bid. No one else ahead of them would be eligible for a BCS bid, as neither the Big Ten nor the SEC would be allowed to have three teams selected. If they both lose, Louisville should get the automatic bid, as they will most likely still be the highest ranked.

Should USC lose, then Florida might be able to sneak into the national title game with a big win over Arkansas. If USC and Florida both lose, then we'll most likely see a rematch in the national title game.

[HedleyLamarr]

(Using your current model)

I think the Orange would take Rutgers, since a school from New Jersey would probably bring in more fans than a school from Idaho.

[jkrdevil]

(Using your current model)

I think the Orange would take Rutgers, since a school from New Jersey would probably bring in more fans than a school from Idaho.

I would think so to considering Rutgers traveled well to Arizona last year as well as helped give the Insight.com bowl good tv Ratings compared to other bowls of that size.

[Epiphanic]

As a personal observation. I think it's silly that Louisville is rated higher than Rutgers. Rutgers beat Louisville. I realize it's probably because Rutgers' loss came recently, but I just think it's silly. Carry on.

[Fred T. Jane]

Good God, I hope the Louisiana Agricultural Institute doesn't get in. How can a team that goes .500 on the road be taken seriously is beyond me...

[Squeaks4]

As a personal observation. I think it's silly that Louisville is rated higher than Rutgers. Rutgers beat Louisville. I realize it's probably because Rutgers' loss came recently, but I just think it's silly. Carry on.

See, thats the thing man. It seems when it's your team you don't get it but yet you seem to fully understand how Michigan is behind a team who lost to an unranked team. Funny how it changes when its someone you care about. And I still freaking hate Michigan.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

As a personal observation. I think it's silly that Louisville is rated higher than Rutgers. Rutgers beat Louisville. I realize it's probably because Rutgers' loss came recently, but I just think it's silly. Carry on.

Well, Louisville lost to a high-ranked undefeated Rutgers team on the road in a prime-time game with all the pressure in the world on them one week after an emotional win over WVU. Further, they lost on a last-second field goal kick.

Rutgers lost by a lot on the road after a long break to unranked Cincinnati.

I see your point, but I think giving Louisville the benefit of the doubt here makes more sense.

[NJTank]

Rutgers will travel well you don't understand the fever for them here right now its crazy. They are new they are fresh and fans have not had many bowls to go to in the past. Compared to Miami who if they get in a bowl this year say like the San Fran Bowl will not draw well because they ve been there and its old hat and it a bad team going to a bad bowl.

[HedleyLamarr]

Good God, I hope the Louisiana Agricultural Institute doesn't get in. How can a team that goes .500 on the road be taken seriously is beyond me...

All four of their road games were against top-10 ranked SEC teams (#3 Auburn, #5 Florida, #8 Tennessee, #5 Arkansas). Splitting those four is a pretty good accomplishment.

[OB33]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2677110

It looks like a 6-6 season and going 0-4 against Auburn will cost Mike Shula his job. While I can't say I'm shocked by this I'm not sure that there's anyone available out there that would be an improvement.

[Epiphanic]

First, I'd like to say that I don't really have a favorite team in college football. In college basketball my team is Wake Forest, so I am glad that the Deacons are having some success this year in football.

Mostly my thoughts about Rutgers and Boise St. stem from a dislike about the BCS format. Rutgers and Boise St. provide decent arguments for what is wrong with the current system. I'm on their bandwagon because I'm a BCS-hater, so to speak. Their success (and ultimate disrespect by the system) shows that the system is flawed.

Had Rutgers gone undefeated they'd still be in the national title picture in the eyes of the "experts." Would they have gotten in? I'm confident that USC (assuming they beat UCLA on Saturday) would have gotten the nod at 11-1 compared to an 11-0 Rutgers team. Rutgers did lose however, and I have to make a weaker argument, but one that isn't invalid. In the interest of anyone who cares I'll lay out my thoughts on the possibilities of a national championship.

USC - If they beat UCLA, they probably deserve the #2 spot. One loss, a BCS conference championship, and a history of winning. Those three things are the recipe of a delicious BCS pie.

Rutgers - If they beat West Virginia, USC loses to UCLA, and Arkansas beats Florida in the SEC, Rutgers has to be the choice in my opinion. One loss and a BCS conference championship should be enough to be considered. When you factor in that they would be the only 1-loss BCS conference winner, it's an obvious choice. The thing that works against them is that they don't have a history of winning.

Florida - If they win the SEC and UCLA beats USC, then they have an argument. Again, one loss, BCS conference championship, and a history of winning. All three ingredients make for a tasty championship pie.

Michigan - If the Rutgers scenario comes to pass, chances are that the Wolverines would get the nod. However, they don't deserve it in my opinion for a couple of reasons. One I think that you need to win your conference to have a shot. The national championship should be the best two teams in the country. By way of losing to OSU, Michigan is at best #2. However, if they are #2, then the game doesn't need to be played. Just give OSU the trophy and call it good. If Michigan wins the championship game should they play a "tie-breaker game?"

Boise St. - What?! Boise State?! Surely I jest. Nope. As someone pointed out earlier, they are a D1-A school and they are undefeated, not too mention conference champions. In reality since there are only two undefeated teams left, there really should be one option regardless of how next weeks games pan out. Will they? No. Why? Because they play in the WAC and the BCS gives all the benefit to the BCS conferences.

So there it is. A practical breakdown of how everything will shakeout. I realize that Rutgers and Boise St. won't get into the national championship game, but their years merit them consideration, something that they won't get. Rutgers, because they don't have a history of winning. Boise St., because they play in a "lesser" conference. Those errors are far worse than the possibility that Michigan doesn't get the nod in my humble opinion.

[-(dp)-]

If Michigan is at best #2 because they lost to #1 on the road by 3 points, shouldn't USC be at best unranked because they lost to an unranked team? Shouldn't Florida be behind Auburn at best? I think if Michigan and Ohio State played at a neutral field, it would be an even better game than the last one, but that most likely isn't going to happen. They are saying that the loss USC had was just to get it out of their system, which makes no sense.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

I really don't care one way or another about Michigan or Ohio State, but...we already saw the Michigan/Ohio State game...I don't want to see it again.

[Epiphanic]

I agree that saying that USC needed to lose just to get it out of their system is ludicrous. You do raise some good points, but I think you're missing my points.

I think it's pretty much a given that Ohio State is number one, and the big debate is who's number two. I didn't say that Michigan is number two because they lost to Ohio State, I said at best they could be number two. A nuance, but an important difference. My argument is that if Michigan is number two Ohio State should just be given the trophy because they've proven they are better than Michigan.

If you want to take my argument to the extreme and say that by that logic USC should be behind Oregon State by way of their loss, I'll bite. The only logical conclusion is that Boise State is #2 with that argument. And I'm fine with sending them to a national title game.

My beef is that the BCS has failed to achieve what it was created for. The split national title of 2003 (LSU/USC) proves it. All the controversy is not a coincidence. The BCS system hasn't changed anything at core of how the champion is decided.

[jkrdevil]

Does anyone else realize how anti-sports this whole argument is? We are debating who should be the number 1 and number 2 teams. This is sports there shouldn't be a debate it should be determined on the field and by that I don't mean pick 2 teams two play to decide it on the field. I mean human opinion should be taken out of the equation entirely.

[Epiphanic]

Sounds like an argument for a playoff system. You convinced me jkrdevil.

[-(dp)-]

I understand your points epiphanic, but I think that Michigan and Ohio state are 1 and 2. I think if it was at the Big House, Michigan would have won in a close game also. That is why I would like to see them play at a neutral field. People say that because Michigan already lost to Ohio State, they already proved Ohio State is better, so give someone else a chance. My problem is they say Michigan lost their chance. Why does Michigan only get a chance at the shoe, but someone else will get a chance at a neutral field. I also have a problem with people talking about how hard USC's schedule was, but Florida's wasn't much easier, they actually might have had a harder schedule. I am getting sick of USC getting the benefit of the doubt just because they are USC.

I would like a playoff, but even if there are only 8 teams, that takes away 2 weeks of the regular season. Also, as someone mentioned before, the argument would just change from who's #2 to who's #8. I agree that the BCS is screwed up, but I am not sure exactly how they should go about changing it.

[Seadragon76]

I figured some coaching news would change the pace.

Michigan hires Cincinnati's Mark D'Antonio yesterday. I know the guy had ties to Ohio State, but I think the Spartans are really reaching here by hiring a guy who was about average at Cincy.

Iowa State pulls one from under the rug. This morning, I heard that they were ready to name Central Michigan head coach Brian Kelly the new man to run the Cyclone nation. Boy, was I wrong. The man now leading ISU is Texas Defensive Coordinator Gene Chizek (Did I spell that right?). Don't get wrong, the guy has some pedigree on him by being the creator of those fine D's at Texas and Auburn, but this maybe more of a stretch then D'Antonio was a Michigan State.