2012 NCAA Football thread

[Cola]

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You can't just say X-team doesn't deserve to play for the national championship after-the-fact. That's not how this thing works. To keep arguing that point is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Notre Dame clearly had the worthy credentials to be allowed to play for the national championship. Losing by 1 point or 28 points doesn't change that.

As for your FantasyLand scenario, there's really no point in getting involved with that, since there's no 4- or 8-team playoff for 2012. It's stupid to fantasize about a what-if playoff format for 2012, and for that matter, 2013.

Again.....don't be an idiot.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game. The point is that it's silly to think that you can know who the best teams in the nation are unless they play each other.

So should we have had a playoff this past year and Notre Dame and Alabama still made the NCG and the Irish STILL got smacked by 28 points...would the playoff system be a failure?

[thespleenenator]

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You have some extremely poor logic.

A playoff system really doesn't reward the best team throughout the season...it rewards the most surging (and healthiest) team in the playoffs.

You can't make the argument that an "almost lost" to Pitt means Notre Dame wasn't one of the two best teams.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game.

Alabama and Notre Dame were two of the best teams after the regular season ended. You make the bad assumption that the two best teams in all of college football will play a close game every time. Football doesn't work that way.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't assume who the beat two teams in the nation are. You may say that a playoff only rewards to hottest team in the nation, and that isn't totally incorrect. But at least they would earn there way to the national title, instead of some computers and coaches telling us who the best two teams in the nation are, and making them play. Again, do you think that NCAA Basketball should have a system like the BCS? Are they doing it wrong?

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You can't just say X-team doesn't deserve to play for the national championship after-the-fact. That's not how this thing works. To keep arguing that point is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Notre Dame clearly had the worthy credentials to be allowed to play for the national championship. Losing by 1 point or 28 points doesn't change that.

As for your FantasyLand scenario, there's really no point in getting involved with that, since there's no 4- or 8-team playoff for 2012. It's stupid to fantasize about a what-if playoff format for 2012, and for that matter, 2013.

Again.....don't be an idiot.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game. The point is that it's silly to think that you can know who the best teams in the nation are unless they play each other.

So should we have had a playoff this past year and Notre Dame and Alabama still made the NCG and the Irish STILL got smacked by 28 points...would the playoff system be a failure?

No, because Notre Dame would've proved that they're the second best team in the nation, instead of being handed that position.

[Lights Out]

A playoff system really doesn't reward the best team throughout the season...it rewards the most surging (and healthiest) team in the playoffs.

It's not like the current system of hand-selecting the "best teams" always rewards the real best team either - after all, how can we truly know which team is the best without all the top teams playing each other?

[crashcarson15]

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You have some extremely poor logic.

A playoff system really doesn't reward the best team throughout the season...it rewards the most surging (and healthiest) team in the playoffs.

You can't make the argument that an "almost lost" to Pitt means Notre Dame wasn't one of the two best teams.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game.

Alabama and Notre Dame were two of the best teams after the regular season ended. You make the bad assumption that the two best teams in all of college football will play a close game every time. Football doesn't work that way.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't assume who the beat two teams in the nation are. You may say that a playoff only rewards to hottest team in the nation, and that isn't totally incorrect. But at least they would earn there way to the national title, instead of some computers and coaches telling us who the best two teams in the nation are, and making them play. Again, do you think that NCAA Basketball should have a system like the BCS? Are they doing it wrong?

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You can't just say X-team doesn't deserve to play for the national championship after-the-fact. That's not how this thing works. To keep arguing that point is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Notre Dame clearly had the worthy credentials to be allowed to play for the national championship. Losing by 1 point or 28 points doesn't change that.

As for your FantasyLand scenario, there's really no point in getting involved with that, since there's no 4- or 8-team playoff for 2012. It's stupid to fantasize about a what-if playoff format for 2012, and for that matter, 2013.

Again.....don't be an idiot.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game. The point is that it's silly to think that you can know who the best teams in the nation are unless they play each other.

So should we have had a playoff this past year and Notre Dame and Alabama still made the NCG and the Irish STILL got smacked by 28 points...would the playoff system be a failure?

No, because Notre Dame would've proved that they're the second best team in the nation, instead of being handed that position.

THEY PROVED IT BY BEATING STANFORD AT HOME WHICH AS A FRIENDLY REMINDER, YOUR BEAUTIFUL OREGON DUCKS DIDN'T DO.

/The NCG isn't about finding out who's #1 and who's #2 anyways. It's about finding who's #1. Which it succeeded in doing. ND ran the table; they deserved to have a chance to prove they were #1.

//I'm also someone who thinks the NCAA basketball tournament is far too large. I don't care how great of a story VCU was or George Mason or Butler but quite frankly, it would've been a complete and total sham if any of them won the title. I'd be in favor of going back to just taking conference champions. The tournament's not about finding the best 68 teams, it's about finding the best one. Use the conference tournaments as an expanded format of this—if you're not the best in your conference, you can't possibly be the best in the nation.

[thespleenenator]

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You have some extremely poor logic.

A playoff system really doesn't reward the best team throughout the season...it rewards the most surging (and healthiest) team in the playoffs.

You can't make the argument that an "almost lost" to Pitt means Notre Dame wasn't one of the two best teams.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game.

Alabama and Notre Dame were two of the best teams after the regular season ended. You make the bad assumption that the two best teams in all of college football will play a close game every time. Football doesn't work that way.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't assume who the beat two teams in the nation are. You may say that a playoff only rewards to hottest team in the nation, and that isn't totally incorrect. But at least they would earn there way to the national title, instead of some computers and coaches telling us who the best two teams in the nation are, and making them play. Again, do you think that NCAA Basketball should have a system like the BCS? Are they doing it wrong?

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You can't just say X-team doesn't deserve to play for the national championship after-the-fact. That's not how this thing works. To keep arguing that point is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Notre Dame clearly had the worthy credentials to be allowed to play for the national championship. Losing by 1 point or 28 points doesn't change that.

As for your FantasyLand scenario, there's really no point in getting involved with that, since there's no 4- or 8-team playoff for 2012. It's stupid to fantasize about a what-if playoff format for 2012, and for that matter, 2013.

Again.....don't be an idiot.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game. The point is that it's silly to think that you can know who the best teams in the nation are unless they play each other.

So should we have had a playoff this past year and Notre Dame and Alabama still made the NCG and the Irish STILL got smacked by 28 points...would the playoff system be a failure?

No, because Notre Dame would've proved that they're the second best team in the nation, instead of being handed that position.

THEY PROVED IT BY BEATING STANFORD AT HOME WHICH AS A FRIENDLY REMINDER, YOUR BEAUTIFUL OREGON DUCKS DIDN'T DO.

/The NCG isn't about finding out who's #1 and who's #2 anyways. It's about finding who's #1. Which it succeeded in doing. ND ran the table; they deserved to have a chance to prove they were #1.

//I'm also someone who thinks the NCAA basketball tournament is far too large. I don't care how great of a story VCU was or George Mason or Butler but quite frankly, it would've been a complete and total sham if any of them won the title. I'd be in favor of going back to just taking conference champions. The tournament's not about finding the best 68 teams, it's about finding the best one. Use the conference tournaments as an expanded format of this—if you're not the best in your conference, you can't possibly be the best in the nation.

I don't think Oregon deserved to be in the championship game. Where does everyone get the idea that I think Oregon is number one anyway? And again, Notre Dame deserved to go to the national championship game under the BCS format, which is something that I've been saying this whole thread. What I'm arguing is that the BCS failed because the team that "deserved" to go to the game wasn't the number 2 team in the nation. We need a 16 team playoff, with 11 conference champions, and 5 at larges.

And I agree with you on the basketball thing, but right now they couldn't do that because there are 32 conferences. The problem is that they need to cut that number in half. Conferences like the SWAC do not deserve to be a Division I conference. However, this would be a problem, as there wouldn't be anywhere to put them. DII is already large enough. So really, the DI NCAA tournament has to be that large. It's at the awkward point of being too big so that too many teams get in, but you can't really make it smaller, otherwise too few teams will get in.

[Lights Out]

/The NCG isn't about finding out who's #1 and who's #2 anyways. It's about finding who's #1. Which it succeeded in doing. ND ran the table; they deserved to have a chance to prove they were #1.

Actually, no, the NCG is about finding the matchup that creates the most money for the BCS and bowl committees while preserving the AQ-conference (and Notre Dame) hegemony at all costs. In fact, that's true for all BCS bowls. The "lesser" BCS bowls begrudgingly allow non-AQ's in to avoid a lawsuit, but I'm convinced that a non-AQ will never be allowed to play for a national title in this system.

If it were all about legitimately crowning a champion, there would have been a March Madness-style tournament in football long, long ago. Unfortunately, college football is so screwed up that determining a champion is a tertiary concern, behind bowl-game money and select conferences maintaining their power.

//I'm also someone who thinks the NCAA basketball tournament is far too large. I don't care how great of a story VCU was or George Mason or Butler but quite frankly, it would've been a complete and total sham if any of them won the title.

How so? If other teams were truly better, they would have beaten VCU, George Mason, or Butler.

Butler especially is a ridiculous example of a "sham" program because they made back-to-back national title games and were thisclose to beating Duke in their first appearance.

Hell, George Mason beat Michigan State, UNC, and UConn on their way to the Final Four. The team they finally lost to ended up winning the national title that year. Yeah, they were SO undeserving. What a "sham."

[BigEd76]

Chip just bailed for the Eagles. Uh oh Oregon

[OnWis97]

/The NCG isn't about finding out who's #1 and who's #2 anyways. It's about finding who's #1. Which it succeeded in doing. ND ran the table; they deserved to have a chance to prove they were #1.

Actually, no, the NCG is about finding the matchup that creates the most money for the BCS and bowl committees while preserving the AQ-conference (and Notre Dame) hegemony at all costs. In fact, that's true for all BCS bowls. The "lesser" BCS bowls begrudgingly allow non-AQ's in to avoid a lawsuit, but I'm convinced that a non-AQ will never be allowed to play for a national title in this system.

If it were all about legitimately crowning a champion, there would have been a March Madness-style tournament in football long, long ago. Unfortunately, college football is so screwed up that determining a champion is a tertiary concern, behind bowl-game money and select conferences maintaining their power.

I agree with most of this but not the first part. If the NCG was about the most money-creating matchup, then they'd find a better way to get Notre Dame in it every year. The rest of what you say is fairly true, as evidenced by Notre Dame's poor BCS bowl record; they get-over placed into these bowl games for TV ratings.

And there is no doubt that college football, from the 1800s through now, has never been about finding a true national champion. In the old days it was probably because there was legitmate concern for players not playing too many games, so they came up with the Bowl system, which unfortunately became a cash cow before there was much interest in finding a better way to create a national champion. And it does not look like we are going back.

I want a 16 team tourney with 11 conference champs and 5 at large. Will never happen because that's four potential games, which would probably necessitate an 11 game schedule and no conference championship games. Too much money to give up there just for the integrity of the national championship race.

As for ND this year, under this system, they were the right pick. I think we kind of knew they were suspect after the Pitt game, but they ran the table. We don't have much to go on but we know they beat Standford. We also know Oregon lost twice. Both Stanford and Oregon are probably better teams, but under the current system, you just cannot afford to lose. And that's why it sucks. That's why, even though the "right" choice was made with the info we had, the second best team was probably not there. I'd much rather see controversy for that 5th at large than for #2. Yes, each year, you'd probably have a Utah State getting blown out by a Florida State in Round 1, but the real contenders would have a shot. And that's far more interesting than going to an exhibition game, even one that's been around as long as the Rose Bowl.

[thespleenenator]

Chip just bailed for the Eagles. Uh oh Oregon

Wow. That miffs me that Kelly said he'd stay at Oregon, then bolted anyway. Well, at least it isn't the Browns or the Bills. I wish him luck.

As for Oregon, I think we'll be fine with Helfrich. I'm only expecting about 10 wins next year anyway, even if we had Kelly.

[CS85]

Deadspin's claiming that Manti Teo's dead girlfriend story never happened.

[Island_Style]

Deadspin's claiming that Manti Teo's dead girlfriend story never happened.

I was coming to post this. If this is true........Jesus H. Crackers.

EDIT: This might deserve it's own thread. This is a big deal. A lot of questions in there.

[Cola]

Chip just bailed for the Eagles. Uh oh Oregon

Hammer is about to come down...hard.

[Jigga]

Mark Helfrich ain't Chip Kelly. They might be fine for a year or two, but just because dude was on the staff doesn't mean it's going to be a seamless transition. The person with the title of Head Coach does make a difference. No disrespect to Mr. Helfrich, who I'm sure is a fine coach and a great human being, but it's not like you can just plug in whatever spare parts are lying around and keep the machine running along at an optimal level.

Good luck to the Duckies...but I don't see Puddles doing anywhere near the same number of push ups in 2013 as he did in 2012.

[crashcarson15]

/The NCG isn't about finding out who's #1 and who's #2 anyways. It's about finding who's #1. Which it succeeded in doing. ND ran the table; they deserved to have a chance to prove they were #1.

Actually, no, the NCG is about finding the matchup that creates the most money for the BCS and bowl committees while preserving the AQ-conference (and Notre Dame) hegemony at all costs. In fact, that's true for all BCS bowls. The "lesser" BCS bowls begrudgingly allow non-AQ's in to avoid a lawsuit, but I'm convinced that a non-AQ will never be allowed to play for a national title in this system.

If it were all about legitimately crowning a champion, there would have been a March Madness-style tournament in football long, long ago. Unfortunately, college football is so screwed up that determining a champion is a tertiary concern, behind bowl-game money and select conferences maintaining their power.

//I'm also someone who thinks the NCAA basketball tournament is far too large. I don't care how great of a story VCU was or George Mason or Butler but quite frankly, it would've been a complete and total sham if any of them won the title.

How so? If other teams were truly better, they would have beaten VCU, George Mason, or Butler.

Butler especially is a ridiculous example of a "sham" program because they made back-to-back national title games and were thisclose to beating Duke in their first appearance.

Hell, George Mason beat Michigan State, UNC, and UConn on their way to the Final Four. The team they finally lost to ended up winning the national title that year. Yeah, they were SO undeserving. What a "sham."

Not saying they were undeserving but there's NO way you can legitimately try and tell me George Mason was the best team in the nation that year.

Really, any sport that has a knockout tournament—specifically basketball—doesn't do the best of jobs finding the best team. The nature of single games, especially in basketball, are fluky.

[Kevin W.]

The nature of single games, especially in basketball, are fluky.

Then why have one solitary game decide the national championship in football?

[rams80]

The nature of single games, especially in basketball, are fluky.

Then why have one solitary game decide the national championship in football?

Diminishing margin of return. When the nature of your sport more or less mandates 1 game per week, you want to settle on the one game rather than a Championship series that lasts almost a month.

[Lights Out]

Really, any sport that has a knockout tournament—specifically basketball—doesn't do the best of jobs finding the best team.

And hand-selecting two teams from biased polls does a better job of it?

[officeglenn]

Didn't think this was worth its own thread, but you can now read some of the applications Wisconsin turned down in their recent search for a head football coach.

Some of them read like they were written by Nigerian princes.

[rams80]

So anyway....

The NCAA just ed up the Miami investigation big time. Yeah, using a bankruptcy trial to subpoena information is a bit of a no no, especially when apparently court records are now beyond the purview of NCAA investigations.

Mind you that last point also means that Pennsylvania's chances of winning its lawsuit over the Penn State sanctions likely just went up by a non-zero amount, since the sanctions were based on information that came to the NCAA from outside its investigative arm.

[rams80]

So anyway....

The NCAA just ed up the Miami investigation big time. Yeah, using a bankruptcy trial to subpoena information is a bit of a no no, especially when apparently court records are now beyond the purview of NCAA investigations.

Mind you that last point also means that Pennsylvania's chances of winning its lawsuit over the Penn State sanctions likely just went up by a non-zero amount, since the sanctions were based on information that came to the NCAA from outside its investigative arm.

NCAA Investigator (not the one doing the review of the investigation) says there was nothing wrong with the NCAA's tactics and JESUS CHRIST YOU WIT YOU LITERALLY HIJACKED THE U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION! OF COURSE THAT'S WRONG AND UNETHICAL!