2012 NCAA Football thread

[Lights Out]

There have been 7 "blowouts" (2 touchdowns or more) since the BCS started vs. 8 non blowouts. This is hardly a "new" problem having 2 mismatched teams.

Just goes to show that perhaps the BCS really doesn't select the two best teams without fail every year. Who'da thunk it?

As for the PAWLLL thing, it's a running joke on EDSBS referring to the angry Bammers and Barners who call in to the Finebaum show.

[Cola]

I know most of you may puke after reading this article, but I thought it was particularly funny how the writer backed me up on my "facts" during my rant earlier last week:

I'm sorry, folks outside of SEC country, but a few facts are incontrovertible. They smoke better barbecue than you. Their women are prettier than your women. They play football better than your schools play football.

[Epiphanic]

That is the problem I have with your idea and the proposed. Conference tie-ins are what is wrong with BCS now. Who says the #1 team in the Big East is better than the #3 in the Big 12? Your last statement is confusing and cancels out your first.

Unless each conference adopts a scheduling format like the Big 12 where everyone plays everyone, then the system will be faulty and room for complaining will exist. How can we let a #1 from the ACC make it to a BCS bowl game (or in this case, the playoffs), when they were crushed by a #5 SEC team at the end of the season?

There has to be room for more than 2 teams from each conference. The poll system sucks because of human bias...and the computer system is no good because humans don't trust it. Crappy situation that we can only hope to find the best of.

If you're not the best in your conference, then why should you have a claim to a chance at a national title?

Because there is the possibility that you didn't play your conference champion and there are 2-3 really great teams in that conference...in comparison to a conference whose champion may not snuff .500 in the aforementioned.

FYI, when I said "there has to be room for more than 2 teams from a conference"...I didn't mean that must happen each year. I meant the language has to leave space for it to happen, should the quality of teams support it.

If you think the possibility that not playing your conference champion (which will happen quite often with these newfangled 14-team superconferences) is a problem, then you must concede that your conference is too big and question the legitimacy of how that conference determines its champion.

[Cola]

That is the problem I have with your idea and the proposed. Conference tie-ins are what is wrong with BCS now. Who says the #1 team in the Big East is better than the #3 in the Big 12? Your last statement is confusing and cancels out your first.

Unless each conference adopts a scheduling format like the Big 12 where everyone plays everyone, then the system will be faulty and room for complaining will exist. How can we let a #1 from the ACC make it to a BCS bowl game (or in this case, the playoffs), when they were crushed by a #5 SEC team at the end of the season?

There has to be room for more than 2 teams from each conference. The poll system sucks because of human bias...and the computer system is no good because humans don't trust it. Crappy situation that we can only hope to find the best of.

If you're not the best in your conference, then why should you have a claim to a chance at a national title?

Because there is the possibility that you didn't play your conference champion and there are 2-3 really great teams in that conference...in comparison to a conference whose champion may not snuff .500 in the aforementioned.

FYI, when I said "there has to be room for more than 2 teams from a conference"...I didn't mean that must happen each year. I meant the language has to leave space for it to happen, should the quality of teams support it.

If you think the possibility that not playing your conference champion (which will happen quite often with these newfangled 14-team superconferences) is a problem, then you must concede that your conference is too big and question the legitimacy of how that conference determines its champion.

No problem agreeing with that and I have gone on record saying that I wasn't a fan of expanding the SEC with Texas A&M and Missouri. It stretched out the period that we will play cross-division opponents as well.

Besides, my Gamecocks have gone 11-1 in the SEC Eastern Division the past 2 seasons and have appeared in the SECCG zero times. That includes 2010 when they finished unbeaten in division play. Unfortunately, the rules are setup to where division records do not matter and the overall conference records does. Do I totally agree with it? Not really, but it is the rules and I will have to accept it. Even harder to accept when it was Georgia going in your place both years and you beat the daylights out of them both years.

So yes, I agree there is an issue but I also know it is how the conference is setup and the facts are how I stated them: you may possibly be a 1-loss team that never played your conference champion and I don't think you should be eliminated from proving you are the best, if your resume backs it up.

[Seadragon76]

I know most of you may puke after reading this article, but I thought it was particularly funny how the writer backed me up on my "facts" during my rant earlier last week:

I'm sorry, folks outside of SEC country, but a few facts are incontrovertible. They smoke better barbecue than you. Their women are prettier than your women. They play football better than your schools play football.

Those last three lines ought to be the SEC's motto for next season

[NEW.ERA]

Bah God it's more than likely true. Especially with the last two.

[thespleenenator]

I know most of you may puke after reading this article, but I thought it was particularly funny how the writer backed me up on my "facts" during my rant earlier last week:

I'm sorry, folks outside of SEC country, but a few facts are incontrovertible. They smoke better barbecue than you. Their women are prettier than your women. They play football better than your schools play football.

I will contend that. I've been to the south an had barbecue. They use too much sauce. WAY too much sauce. Same with Texas (Which is actually even worse).

[Kevin W.]

No conference has an exclusive claim to hot women.

[Kramerica Industries]

The hot women claim is most easily made in the south, if only because the opportunities for a woman to glow in her sexiness are more common in the south.

There are plenty of great looking women everywhere. It's just harder to tell when it's below zero in fricken' St. Paul, MN.

[Cola]

I know most of you may puke after reading this article, but I thought it was particularly funny how the writer backed me up on my "facts" during my rant earlier last week:

I'm sorry, folks outside of SEC country, but a few facts are incontrovertible. They smoke better barbecue than you. Their women are prettier than your women. They play football better than your schools play football.

I will contend that. I've been to the south an had barbecue. They use too much sauce. WAY too much sauce. Same with Texas (Which is actually even worse).

How can we use too much of something we basically invented and perfected? Besides, most barbecue houses allow you to add your own sauce. Texas/Midwest barbecue isn't really the same as Georgia/Carolinas barbecue. In the GA/SC/NC, barbecue is pulled pork and that is it. When we ask for barbecue, that is the only meat we are talking about. In Texas/Midwest, it is more of a cooking method preparing multiple types of meat (beef brisket, sliced and pulled pork, ribs, sausage, chicken legs etc).

I had a neighbor move in and he was from somewhere in New York state. Invited me over for barbecue one weekend. Got there, and he had a little Weber smokey joe grilling hot dogs and burgers. Facepalm. I had to explain that he was grilling meat, not barbecuing.

[vicfurth]

Totally true, Cola. I've never heard (or craved) Oregon/California barbecue. Can't wait to try it.

[HedleyLamarr]

I don't quite get why folks are saying "The BCS is flawed", especially after a game is played. If it were a 1-point game, would folks still be saying that? Doubt it.

Anyway, the BCS isn't as flawed as some think it is. The BCS's lone responsibility is to come up with the two best teams for a NCG, and that's it. Folks complained that human voters had too much say, so they use computers and various formulas for the different computers. Notre Dame was the lone undefeated team left, and the computers felt that Notre Dame played a strong enough schedule to warrant inclusion into the championship game. It wasn't like Notre Dame played a WAC or Mountain West schedule....they did beat Stanford, Oklahoma, and Michigan (three teams that finished the season ranked).

Once the polls decide which teams are #1 and #2, responsibility falls into the various bowl committee's hands as far as picking teams to play in their bowls.

It's flawed because it's not a playoff. It did it's job. But it's job is not enough. We need more than that. In a playoff, Notre Dame, would've rightfully been knocked out in the first round.

When something is flawed, you're essentially saying that the intended goals and purposes are reachable, but wasn't produced.

The BCS wasn't created to produce a 4-team (or more) playoff. The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

"The BCS is flawed because it's not a playoff" is a pretty dumb thing to say. Mainly because, going into the season, we knew there wasn't going to be a playoff. Just mentioning "playoffs!" really doesn't bring much to the discussion when you know there won't be a playoff format at the end of the season.

Don't be an idiot.

[Lights Out]

The BCS wasn't created to produce a 4-team (or more) playoff. The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

Um, that's pretty subjective. The problem with hand-selecting the "best two teams" is that there's usually a lot more than two schools with legit claims to being a top-two team in the country.

I mean, does anyone really think Notre Dame was more deserving to be on that field than Oregon, K-State, Georgia, or Texas A&M after how badly they got exposed?

[Still MIGHTY]

I mean, does anyone really think Notre Dame was more deserving to be on that field than Oregon, K-State, Georgia, or Texas A&M after how badly they got exposed?

After the fact, of course no.

But before Monday, Notre Dame was the only undefeated and eligible team in the country. They deserved to be in the game until the ball was kicked off.

[Kevin W.]

The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

That is extremely debatable.

[HedleyLamarr]

The BCS wasn't created to produce a 4-team (or more) playoff. The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

Um, that's pretty subjective. The problem with hand-selecting the "best two teams" is that there's usually a lot more than two schools with legit claims to being a top-two team in the country.

I mean, does anyone really think Notre Dame was more deserving to be on that field than Oregon, K-State, Georgia, or Texas A&M after how badly they got exposed?

I do.

National championship games =/= closely contested games.

Say Notre Dame went undefeated but finished 3rd in the BCS standings. To top it off, Notre Dame wins their bowl game (which would be one of the Rose, Orange, Sugar, or Fiesta...since finishing 3rd in most likelihood gives them an automatic spot) and finishes 13-0. You would be one of the first to whine that Notre Dame, being the lone undefeated team in FBS, got shafted and didn't get to play for the national title. Hell, we've seen you whine and bitch and moan that Boise State didn't get a chance to play for the national title, just because BSU was undefeated.

Notre Dame was the lone undefeated team remaining, and in the process beat Pac-12 and Rose Bowl Champion Stanford (something Oregon couldn't do, mind you), as well as other ranked and decent-enough teams (Oklahoma in Norman, and Michigan). ND certainly deserved to go over 2-loss teams Georgia and Texas A&M. And as we learned, Kansas State took it up the shorts against Oregon. And Oregon couldn't beat Stanford on their home turf (something Notre Dame managed to do).

Yes, Notre Dame deserved their shot. The same chance you've been clamoring every other undefeated team should get. Can't have it both ways just because they flopped on the biggest stage.

[thespleenenator]

The BCS wasn't created to produce a 4-team (or more) playoff. The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

Um, that's pretty subjective. The problem with hand-selecting the "best two teams" is that there's usually a lot more than two schools with legit claims to being a top-two team in the country.

I mean, does anyone really think Notre Dame was more deserving to be on that field than Oregon, K-State, Georgia, or Texas A&M after how badly they got exposed?

I do.

National championship games =/= closely contested games.

Say Notre Dame went undefeated but finished 3rd in the BCS standings. To top it off, Notre Dame wins their bowl game (which would be one of the Rose, Orange, Sugar, or Fiesta...since finishing 3rd in most likelihood gives them an automatic spot) and finishes 13-0. You would be one of the first to whine that Notre Dame, being the lone undefeated team in FBS, got shafted and didn't get to play for the national title. Hell, we've seen you whine and bitch and moan that Boise State didn't get a chance to play for the national title, just because BSU was undefeated.

Notre Dame was the lone undefeated team remaining, and in the process beat Pac-12 and Rose Bowl Champion Stanford (something Oregon couldn't do, mind you), as well as other ranked and decent-enough teams (Oklahoma in Norman, and Michigan). ND certainly deserved to go over 2-loss teams Georgia and Texas A&M. And as we learned, Kansas State took it up the shorts against Oregon. And Oregon couldn't beat Stanford on their home turf (something Notre Dame managed to do).

Yes, Notre Dame deserved their shot. The same chance you've been clamoring every other undefeated team should get. Can't have it both ways just because they flopped on the biggest stage.

Or we could get rid of the BCS, and have a playoff and not worry about that.

[HedleyLamarr]

The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

That is extremely debatable.

I like a challenge.....

Ok, we'll assume that today's date is January 6th. The BCS national title game has yet to be played.

I'll take Notre Dame and Alabama as the two teams playing for the national title. Using everything we know about the 2012 FBS college football season through Jan. 6th, your task is simple: You have to come up with another team besides Notre Dame and Alabama that should be playing in the NCG. There are 118 (or more) choices for you to choose from. State your case as to why that team should be playing for the national championship.

And....go!

[HedleyLamarr]

Or we could get rid of the BCS, and have a playoff and not worry about that.

That wasn't an option at the beginning of 2012, now was it?

I really don't put much stock into the "ND would have lost in the first round of the playoffs" argument because you're wandering around in FantasyLand.

[thespleenenator]

Or we could get rid of the BCS, and have a playoff and not worry about that.

That wasn't an option at the beginning of 2012, now was it?

I really don't put much stock into the "ND would have lost in the first round of the playoffs" argument because you're wandering around in FantasyLand.

It wasn't an option, but it's the best solution.