COLLEGE FOOTBALL 2007

[OB33]

Random stats of the week:

Troy Smith has a higher completion percentage and more passing yards than Brady Quinn.

Brady Quinn has more rushing yards than Troy Smith.

Go figure.

[WJMorris3]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

[KevinMcD]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

09/02 at Ga Tech

09/09 #19 Penn State

09/16 #11 Michigan

09/23 at Mich St

09/30 Purdue

10/07 Stanford

10/21 UCLA

10/28 at Navy

11/04 UNC

11/11 at Air Force

11/18 Army

11/25 at #4 USC

Thats 6 bowl teams from last year. I call that a hard schedule. No matter if they are in a conference or not they schedule HARD. If they go undefeated, or end the season with one loss they should make the title game. (if only one team goes undefeated).

[rams80]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

Actually, the Bowl Series I would like to see has six more teams and this funny bracket-looking thingy in it.

[WJMorris3]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

Actually, the Bowl Series I would like to see has six more teams and this funny bracket-looking thingy in it.

Oh, a playoff? Simple. 12 teams - take the 11 conference champions and the 2nd best team from the best conference. Completely fair.

[KevinMcD]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

Actually, the Bowl Series I would like to see has six more teams and this funny bracket-looking thingy in it.

Oh, a playoff? Simple. 12 teams - take the 11 conference champions and the 2nd best team from the best conference. Completely fair.

16 would be better, have SEC, Big 10, Big 12, & ACC get two bids. The other conference winners get in and a WC from one of those other conferences or an INDPD.

With 12 would have to have byes.

So The #1 team could beat up on Sun Belt Champ which is basically a bye.

[HedleyLamarr]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

Actually, the Bowl Series I would like to see has six more teams and this funny bracket-looking thingy in it.

Oh, a playoff? Simple. 12 teams - take the 11 conference champions and the 2nd best team from the best conference. Completely fair.

You think determining the BCS Championship Game's participants have a lot of arguements to filter through?

Just wait until you're having to determine seeds 10-12 (for a 12-team bracket) or seeds 13-16 (for a 16-team bracket) amongst at least 10 teams. It is easier (and makes more sense) to agree on a Top Two over the Top 16. No matter what system is in place, there are going to be debates over who gets in.

How is determining that 12th team any different (or any easier) than determining who's #2?

[KevinMcD]

Mark my words, Notre Dame's out of the top 10 after the home team wins this week.

Seriously guys, wouldn't you rather see a bowl series like this?

BCS title game: USC (11-1) v Michigan (11-1)

Fiesta Bowl: Texas (12-1) v TCU (11-1)

Orange Bowl: Miami (12-1) v Louisville (11-1)

Rose Bowl: Ohio State (11-1) v Notre Dame (12-0)

Sugar Bowl: Auburn (12-1) v Nebraska (11-2)

Until Notre Dame plays a meaningful conference schedule, you can't put them in the BCS title game.

Actually, the Bowl Series I would like to see has six more teams and this funny bracket-looking thingy in it.

Oh, a playoff? Simple. 12 teams - take the 11 conference champions and the 2nd best team from the best conference. Completely fair.

You think determining the BCS Championship Game's participants have a lot of arguements to filter through?

Just wait until you're having to determine seeds 10-12 (for a 12-team bracket) or seeds 13-16 (for a 16-team bracket) amongst at least 10 teams. It is easier (and makes more sense) to agree on a Top Two over the Top 16. No matter what system is in place, there are going to be debates over who gets in.

How is determining that 12th team any different (or any easier) than determining who's #2?

But #3 in the current system is screwed. But in a playoff 12 or 16 teams have a chance, #16 does not have a good chance, but they get to play the number one team in the nation, for a possible upset. Yes ranking #1-16 would be hard but it won't matter as much as ranking #1-2 if USC is ranked #3 it has a very good chance of winning it all, but in the current system they get to play for bragging rights in the Rose Bowl. If they rank a team #4 or #5 it really dosen't matter in a playoff their competition will be about the same (#13 or #14).

[HedleyLamarr]

You think determining the BCS Championship Game's participants have a lot of arguements to filter through?

Just wait until you're having to determine seeds 10-12 (for a 12-team bracket) or seeds 13-16 (for a 16-team bracket) amongst at least 10 teams.  It is easier (and makes more sense) to agree on a Top Two over the Top 16.  No matter what system is in place, there are going to be debates over who gets in.

How is determining that 12th team any different (or any easier) than determining who's #2?

But #3 in the current system is screwed. But in a playoff 12 or 16 teams have a chance, #16 does not have a good chance, but they get to play the number one team in the nation, for a possible upset. Yes ranking #1-16 would be hard but it won't matter as much as ranking #1-2 if USC is ranked #3 it has a very good chance of winning it all, but in the current system they get to play for bragging rights in the Rose Bowl. If they rank a team #4 or #5 it really dosen't matter in a playoff their competition will be about the same (#13 or #14).

If college football institutes a playoff system, the significance of the regular season diminishes greatly.

1. If there's a 16-team (even 12-team) playoff, we'll see less of these powers scheduling each other. Since winning games would be most important, we'll see less of the Texas-Ohio State matchups, and more of the cupcake games we saw prior to the BCS.

2. The regular season is the playoffs. One regular-season loss, and you could lose out on making it to the Championship. You can't say this about any other team sport. You have to bring the same intensity, no matter if you're playing Directional Louisiana or Notre Dame.

3. Nine seasons out of ten, the #3 team will have one loss. How many teams per season finish with 1 or fewer losses before the bowl season? More often than not, the #12 and #16 teams are 2- and 3-loss, even 4-loss teams. There are a lot more 2-, 3-, 4-loss teams than there are 0- and 1-loss teams. It will be a lot more difficult to sort out the best of the multiple-loss teams. Won't #17's "We got screwed" arguement sound a lot like #3's current arguement?

Bluntly stated, a team that goes 8-4, 9-3, even 10-2 shouldn't be arguing their case for getting a chance to play for the National Championship if there are two teams or more with fewer than two losses. A team (with a conference affiliation) that couldn't win it's own conference shouldn't be making an arguement for the National Championship game.

Yes, there are going to be those rare occasions where there'll be more than two undefeateds or just one undefeated and multiple 1-loss teams. We have enough polls, both human and computer, that can come to a consensus on the most deserving two teams.

Also, there is no way amateur athletes should be playing more games than the professionals, who don't have academics to keep up.

[KevinMcD]

You think determining the BCS Championship Game's participants have a lot of arguements to filter through?

Just wait until you're having to determine seeds 10-12 (for a 12-team bracket) or seeds 13-16 (for a 16-team bracket) amongst at least 10 teams.  It is easier (and makes more sense) to agree on a Top Two over the Top 16.  No matter what system is in place, there are going to be debates over who gets in.

How is determining that 12th team any different (or any easier) than determining who's #2?

But #3 in the current system is screwed. But in a playoff 12 or 16 teams have a chance, #16 does not have a good chance, but they get to play the number one team in the nation, for a possible upset. Yes ranking #1-16 would be hard but it won't matter as much as ranking #1-2 if USC is ranked #3 it has a very good chance of winning it all, but in the current system they get to play for bragging rights in the Rose Bowl. If they rank a team #4 or #5 it really dosen't matter in a playoff their competition will be about the same (#13 or #14).

If college football institutes a playoff system, the significance of the regular season diminishes greatly.

1. If there's a 16-team (even 12-team) playoff, we'll see less of these powers scheduling each other. Since winning games would be most important, we'll see less of the Texas-Ohio State matchups, and more of the cupcake games we saw prior to the BCS.

2. The regular season is the playoffs. One regular-season loss, and you could lose out on making it to the Championship. You can't say this about any other team sport. You have to bring the same intensity, no matter if you're playing Directional Louisiana or Notre Dame.

3. Nine seasons out of ten, the #3 team will have one loss. How many teams per season finish with 1 or fewer losses before the bowl season? More often than not, the #12 and #16 teams are 2- and 3-loss, even 4-loss teams. There are a lot more 2-, 3-, 4-loss teams than there are 0- and 1-loss teams. It will be a lot more difficult to sort out the best of the multiple-loss teams. Won't #17's "We got screwed" arguement sound a lot like #3's current arguement?

Bluntly stated, a team that goes 8-4, 9-3, even 10-2 shouldn't be arguing their case for getting a chance to play for the National Championship if there are two teams or more with fewer than two losses. A team (with a conference affiliation) that couldn't win it's own conference shouldn't be making an arguement for the National Championship game.

Yes, there are going to be those rare occasions where there'll be more than two undefeateds or just one undefeated and multiple 1-loss teams. We have enough polls, both human and computer, that can come to a consensus on the most deserving two teams.

Also, there is no way amateur athletes should be playing more games than the professionals, who don't have academics to keep up.

1)Probably but who cares you will still have big conference games and the playoff. I trade for that any day.

2)Yeah, but one misstep or missed call and your season is ruined. I think teams should have a chance to make up for those mistakes in the playoffs.

3)But #17 does not have a huge chance of winning. If they were #16 they would have to face #1 then more top 5 teams. They just don't have to win one game they have to win 4 games.

To your last point: Have 12 regular season games, and 4 playoff games that is 16 games, equal to an NFL season.

[rams80]

You think determining the BCS Championship Game's participants have a lot of arguements to filter through?

Just wait until you're having to determine seeds 10-12 (for a 12-team bracket) or seeds 13-16 (for a 16-team bracket) amongst at least 10 teams.  It is easier (and makes more sense) to agree on a Top Two over the Top 16.  No matter what system is in place, there are going to be debates over who gets in.

How is determining that 12th team any different (or any easier) than determining who's #2?

But #3 in the current system is screwed. But in a playoff 12 or 16 teams have a chance, #16 does not have a good chance, but they get to play the number one team in the nation, for a possible upset. Yes ranking #1-16 would be hard but it won't matter as much as ranking #1-2 if USC is ranked #3 it has a very good chance of winning it all, but in the current system they get to play for bragging rights in the Rose Bowl. If they rank a team #4 or #5 it really dosen't matter in a playoff their competition will be about the same (#13 or #14).

If college football institutes a playoff system, the significance of the regular season diminishes greatly.

1. If there's a 16-team (even 12-team) playoff, we'll see less of these powers scheduling each other. Since winning games would be most important, we'll see less of the Texas-Ohio State matchups, and more of the cupcake games we saw prior to the BCS.

2. The regular season is the playoffs. One regular-season loss, and you could lose out on making it to the Championship. You can't say this about any other team sport. You have to bring the same intensity, no matter if you're playing Directional Louisiana or Notre Dame.

3. Nine seasons out of ten, the #3 team will have one loss. How many teams per season finish with 1 or fewer losses before the bowl season? More often than not, the #12 and #16 teams are 2- and 3-loss, even 4-loss teams. There are a lot more 2-, 3-, 4-loss teams than there are 0- and 1-loss teams. It will be a lot more difficult to sort out the best of the multiple-loss teams. Won't #17's "We got screwed" arguement sound a lot like #3's current arguement?

Bluntly stated, a team that goes 8-4, 9-3, even 10-2 shouldn't be arguing their case for getting a chance to play for the National Championship if there are two teams or more with fewer than two losses. A team (with a conference affiliation) that couldn't win it's own conference shouldn't be making an arguement for the National Championship game.

Yes, there are going to be those rare occasions where there'll be more than two undefeateds or just one undefeated and multiple 1-loss teams. We have enough polls, both human and computer, that can come to a consensus on the most deserving two teams.

Also, there is no way amateur athletes should be playing more games than the professionals, who don't have academics to keep up.

1. We're gonna see more cupcakes anyway. Outside of traditional non-conference rivalries, the bigtime schools were avoiding these games BECAUSE losing knocks you out of the title chase. A playoff system gives you enough of a margin of error to play that game. What did teams do when they got the 12th game? A lot of them scheduled "guaranteed" wins.

2. Tied in to point one, you are encouraged to get cupcakes on your schedule to help yourself out (and hopefully you won't choke on them.)

3. Keep the BCS rankings for seeding and picking at larges. Top 5 teams that don't win the conference get in. (Anyway, people complain in every sport about this and the system doesn't collapse; this way more teams have a chance to win the title.) Besides, under my system, you can still play all the minor bowls with teams not in the field of 16. So #17 can play in the ChrisCreamer.com SportsLogos Bowl

Teams can go on runs late on any level and should still get a shot at the title. Every other division lets at least 16 teams in, and I don't hear any complaints from Presidents there-even though the season is starting to hit NFL regular season length for champions.

Anyway counting preseason, a potential NFL champion would play 23-24 games. The most a college team (and that would be only 2) would play would be 16.

[HedleyLamarr]

1. We're gonna see more cupcakes anyway. Outside of traditional non-conference rivalries, the bigtime schools were avoiding these games BECAUSE losing knocks you out of the title chase. A playoff system gives you enough of a margin of error to play that game. What did teams do when they got the 12th game? A lot of them scheduled "guaranteed" wins.

2. Tied in to point one, you are encouraged to get cupcakes on your schedule to help yourself out (and hopefully you won't choke on them.)

3. Keep the BCS rankings for seeding and picking at larges. Top 5 teams that don't win the conference get in. (Anyway, people complain in every sport about this and the system doesn't collapse; this way more teams have a chance to win the title.) Besides, under my system, you can still play all the minor bowls with teams not in the field of 16. So #17 can play in the ChrisCreamer.com SportsLogos Bowl

Teams can go on runs late on any level and should still get a shot at the title. Every other division lets at least 16 teams in, and I don't hear any complaints from Presidents there-even though the season is starting to hit NFL regular season length for champions.

Anyway counting preseason, a potential NFL champion would play 23-24 games. The most a college team (and that would be only 2) would play would be 16.

They scheduled the cupcakes because they didn't have much time to plan out this 12th game in a few month's time. The Georgia's and Auburn's and other big schools offered these cupcakes like $300,000 to come play in their stadium so they could get an extra home game, sell out the place, and generate more revenue.

Even so, the big schools are scheduling harder games. Georgia agreed to a home-and-home with Colorado the season they won the Big XII (Looked good earlier this decade...). Nebraska's playing USC this weekend, and Miami is playing at Louisville. Playing harder opponents, regardless of the outcome, do more good in the BCS standings (especially the computer polls) than harm by losing. If there were no BCS, we wouldn't have watched Ohio State-Texas last weekend.

College football's system is great as it is right now. You have to be focused in each and every game. You can afford to lose a game in the NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL, and college basketball, and still have plenty of comfort room left to win the championship. Not college football!

[rams80]

1.  We're gonna see more cupcakes anyway.  Outside of traditional non-conference rivalries, the bigtime schools were avoiding these games BECAUSE losing knocks you out of the title chase.  A playoff system gives you enough of a margin of error to play that game.  What did teams do when they got the 12th game?  A lot of them scheduled "guaranteed" wins.

2.  Tied in to point one, you are encouraged to get cupcakes on your schedule to help yourself out (and hopefully you won't choke on them.)

3.  Keep the BCS rankings for seeding and picking at larges.  Top 5 teams that don't win the conference get in.  (Anyway, people complain in every sport about this and the system doesn't collapse; this way more teams have a chance to win the title.)  Besides, under my system, you can still play all the minor bowls with teams not in the field of 16.  So #17 can play in the ChrisCreamer.com SportsLogos Bowl

Teams can go on runs late on any level and should still get a shot at the title.  Every other division lets at least 16 teams in, and I don't hear any complaints from Presidents there-even though the season is starting to hit NFL regular season length for champions.

Anyway counting preseason, a potential NFL champion would play 23-24 games.  The most a college team (and that would be only 2) would play would be 16.

They scheduled the cupcakes because they didn't have much time to plan out this 12th game in a few month's time. The Georgia's and Auburn's and other big schools offered these cupcakes like $300,000 to come play in their stadium so they could get an extra home game, sell out the place, and generate more revenue.

Even so, the big schools are scheduling harder games. Georgia agreed to a home-and-home with Colorado the season they won the Big XII (Looked good earlier this decade...). Nebraska's playing USC this weekend, and Miami is playing at Louisville. Playing harder opponents, regardless of the outcome, do more good in the BCS standings (especially the computer polls) than harm by losing. If there were no BCS, we wouldn't have watched Ohio State-Texas last weekend.

College football's system is great as it is right now. You have to be focused in each and every game. You can afford to lose a game in the NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL, and college basketball, and still have plenty of comfort room left to win the championship. Not college football!

They figured this was coming for some time. (I think there had been talk about it for a year or two.) When you factor in the Conference schedule, teams will try to get cupcakes because the easy win will help you get to a bowl or better.

On Nebraska-USC. Yes they did schedule them, and I'm sure there are a bunch of Nebraska fans like me and my Dad who want to see the AD's head on a platter for scheduling those games. (His exact words were "They have lost their minds." and "I guess they want to replace the Oklahoma loss.") But really you've only named 3-4 examples out of 55 teams. The trend is to get easier non-conference games.

One and done may appeal to purists like you, but the absence of a second chance kills fan interest in teams after one or two losses (and shoot maybe the players lose interest as well). With a large playoff, fans can still be interested and excited in their teams.

[HedleyLamarr]

They figured this was coming for some time. (I think there had been talk about it for a year or two.) When you factor in the Conference schedule, teams will try to get cupcakes because the easy win will help you get to a bowl or better.

On Nebraska-USC. Yes they did schedule them, and I'm sure there are a bunch of Nebraska fans like me and my Dad who want to see the AD's head on a platter for scheduling those games. (His exact words were "They have lost their minds." and "I guess they want to replace the Oklahoma loss.") But really you've only named 3-4 examples out of 55 teams. The trend is to get easier non-conference games.

One and done may appeal to purists like you, but the absence of a second chance kills fan interest in teams after one or two losses (and shoot maybe the players lose interest as well). With a large playoff, fans can still be interested and excited in their teams.

Umm....ever heard of rivalry games and conference championships?

There's not much of a drop-off in fan enthusiasm once their team loses a game or two. I've been to UGA-Tech games where both teams have at least 4 losses, and everyone is still as rabid as they were in September. This is how big college football is. You're a fan of Nebraska....how pumped were you when Nebraska played Colorado last year?

I can name numerous recent examples of big schools scheduling big non-conference opponents: Auburn-USC, Georgia-Clemson, Oklahoma-Oregon, Tennessee-Miami....just look things up.

[rams80]

They figured this was coming for some time.  (I think there had been talk about it for a year or two.)  When you factor in the Conference schedule, teams will try to get cupcakes because the easy win will help you get to a bowl or better.

On Nebraska-USC.  Yes they did schedule them, and I'm sure there are a bunch of Nebraska fans like me and my Dad who want to see the AD's head on a platter for scheduling those games.  (His exact words were "They have lost their minds." and "I guess they want to replace the Oklahoma loss.")  But really you've only named 3-4 examples out of 55 teams.  The trend is to get easier non-conference games.

One and done may appeal to purists like you, but the absence of a second chance kills fan interest in teams after one or two losses (and shoot maybe the players lose interest as well).  With a large playoff, fans can still be interested and excited in their teams.

Umm....ever heard of rivalry games and conference championships?

There's not much of a drop-off in fan enthusiasm once their team loses a game or two. I've been to UGA-Tech games where both teams have at least 4 losses, and everyone is still as rabid as they were in September. This is how big college football is. You're a fan of Nebraska....how pumped were you when Nebraska played Colorado last year?

I can name numerous recent examples of big schools scheduling big non-conference opponents: Auburn-USC, Georgia-Clemson, Oklahoma-Oregon, Tennessee-Miami....just look things up.

My enthusiasm was there for the game, but it wasn't at the "Hey we need this win if we want to play for the National Title" level. (Of course part of that is I'm more of an old-school fan thanks to Dad: Oklahoma is still Public Enemy #1 in my world view).

As for Conference Championships, you'll note Nebraska hasn't played for one for awhile.

Is the enthusiasm there at Tech for say a late season game against Maryland or Virginia after a couple of losses?

[HedleyLamarr]

Is the enthusiasm there at Tech for say a late season game against Maryland or Virginia after a couple of losses?

I wouldn't know. I'm not a fan of the North Avenue Trade School.

But at Georgia......yes.

[WJMorris3]

OK. Can we agree to drop the Irish out of the top 10 regardless of what happens tonight? They look flat against a team that's frankly not that good. I mean, if they were losing to the best team in the Big Ten, that would be one thing, but...

I mean, guys, look at the schedule. This is not Auburn who plays 'Bama, Georgia, Florida and LSU, or Miami who plays FSU, VT, and Boston College. Those two schools actually have the courage to schedule tough opponents.

[Fred T. Jane]

OK. Can we agree to drop the Irish out of the top 10 regardless of what happens tonight? They look flat against a team that's frankly not that good. I mean, if they were losing to the best team in the Big Ten, that'd be a different story.

Ohio St. looked flat in the 1st Half against Cincinatti. You're going to drop them out of the Top 10 also, or are you going to just continue your illogical hatred of Notre Dame regardless?

[WJMorris3]

OK.  Can we agree to drop the Irish out of the top 10 regardless of what happens tonight?  They look flat against a team that's frankly not that good.  I mean, if they were losing to the best team in the Big Ten, that'd be a different story.

Ohio St. looked flat in the 1st Half against Cincinatti. You're going to drop them out of the Top 10 also, or are you going to just continue your illogical hatred of Notre Dame regardless?

Yes, but OSU had the guts to schedule Texas.

[Fred T. Jane]

Yes, but OSU had the guts to schedule Texas.

...and Notre Dame plays USC yearly. Your point was what exactly?