2013 NCAA FOOTBALL THREAD

[DarkJourney]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

[FiddySicks]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

I wouldn't count us out that easily. We lost pretty big last time we played them, but it was on the heels of the worst first half we've played all season. They were one drive away from coming all the way back from being down big and they made it a decent game. Plus, Stanford has their two losses to teams we beat. It's definitely going to be a tough test for us, but the way we've been playing since that tough loss to Notre Dame in Dallas convinces me we have more than just a shot to win the PAC 12 and go to the Rose Bowl. If we come out and play like we've been playing these last 8 weeks, and if Stanford pulls a Jekyll and Hyde like they did vs Utah and USC, we'll not only win, but we'll win big I think.

Like I said, it's gonna be a tough test for us next weekend, but it's one I think were ready for.

But whoever wins the PAC 12 title game most likely gets Bama in the Rose Bowl so, um, yeah...

[rams80]

Orange might grab Bama first.

[FiddySicks]

Speaking of that, what exactly is the pecking order for the BCS bowls? I've always been under the impression that if one particular bowl had one of their teams who won a conference title unavailable due to the National Championship, that they get first shot at at large bids. And doesn't the Rose Bowl get priority over the Orange Bowl anyway due to its age?

[Still MIGHTY]

The bowls that lose their automatic participants to the BCS title game get first dibs at their replacements, in order of ranking. So Florida State will be #1 and Ohio State #2, the Orange Bowl gets the first replacement choice, and the Rose Bowl would get the second. But the selection committees aren't beholden to the rankings. They go with whatever will sell tickets or whatever they feel. With the Rose Bowl, they've always preferred their traditional Pac-12/Big 10 match-up. (And the Orange Bowl with the ACC, and the Sugar with the SEC) So for the Rose Bowl, at this point, the most likely choice for an Ohio State replacement would be Michigan State, and the Orange Bowl would be expected to replace FSU with Clemson for the ACC.

Although with the second phase of at-larges, the Orange Bowl gets the first choice in the rotation this year (followed by the Sugar and Fiesta). So no matter what, I'd suspect the Orange Bowl would pick Clemson and Alabama in any order. Maybe they go with Alabama as the replacement because they fear the Rose Bowl snatching them and know Pasadena wouldn't pick Clemson, so Clemson is picked as the first at large. Either way, I think it's a safe bet for Clemson/Alabama in the Orange and Stanford/ASU vs Ohio State/Michigan State in the Rose.

tl;dr - So if it's #1 FSU and #2 OSU, the at-large selection would go like this:

1. Orange

2. Rose

3. Orange

4. Sugar

5. Fiesta

[Funky Bunky]

You still think Clemson gets a BCS bid despite losing yesterday?

[rams80]

You still think Clemson gets a BCS bid despite losing yesterday?

They have a chance if they stay in the Top 14. Same goes for Sparty if it loses next week.

[infrared41]

You still think Clemson gets a BCS bid despite losing yesterday?

Bowls are more concerned with ticket sales than they are with records. So yes Clemson has a good shot at a BCS bid.

[Cola]

Gary Pinkel would get my vote for coach of the year. Out ing standing. Took a 5-7 team that turned into an SEC laughingstock, and someone who everyone thought would be in the cellar with Kentucky and Tennessee. Instead, took them to 11-1 an SEC East title, while losing a starting QB midway through their toughest stretch of the season. Also, that 11-1 could very easily be 12-0 and in the midst of the national championship race. Of course Cutcliffe will probably get it, but my vote should got to Pinkel. Hell of a coup by him, and good for Missouri.

I hate to take anything away from Mizzou because the facts are that they finished the regular season 11-1 and will play in the SECCG. However, I don't know if I've ever seen a more perfect storm of favor develop for a team in the SEC.

- Their first 4 opponents were Murray State, Toledo, Indiana, and Arkansas State.

- They play Georgia at their weakest in 50 years...3 starting receivers out and Top 2 RBs out, one of which may be best RB in nation.

- Next they beat a decimated Florida team "ranked" #22 in the nation.

- Lose to Carolina (Shaw was out and played 2nd half injured, we had 3 turnovers and looked horrible)

- Wrap up the season beating Tennessee, Kentucky, and 2 of the SEC's most iffy teams: Ole Miss and Texas A&M.

South Carolina screwed their chances by losing to Tennessee on a miracle one-handed fade route catch on the sidelines.

However, while I think they deserve some credit (11 wins is great in any league, they lost their QB for a few games, and they were the least likely candidate when the season started)...I am skeptical of Mizzou, still- they probably have the weakest resume of any 10+ win team. Then again, maybe it takes a little bit of luck at the right time to make it to big places.

I think am mostly bitter that we have beat the SEC East representative the past 3 years.

[Lights Out]

Maybe Mizzou got "lucky" this year, but they had terrible luck with injuries last year, so it all balances out.

[Burkell007]

well compared to auburn, mizzou aint lucky by ANY stretch....

[rams80]

Gary Pinkel would get my vote for coach of the year. Out ing standing. Took a 5-7 team that turned into an SEC laughingstock, and someone who everyone thought would be in the cellar with Kentucky and Tennessee. Instead, took them to 11-1 an SEC East title, while losing a starting QB midway through their toughest stretch of the season. Also, that 11-1 could very easily be 12-0 and in the midst of the national championship race. Of course Cutcliffe will probably get it, but my vote should got to Pinkel. Hell of a coup by him, and good for Missouri.

I hate to take anything away from Mizzou because the facts are that they finished the regular season 11-1 and will play in the SECCG. However, I don't know if I've ever seen a more perfect storm of favor develop for a team in the SEC.

- Their first 4 opponents were Murray State, Toledo, Indiana, and Arkansas State.

- They play Georgia at their weakest in 50 years...3 starting receivers out and Top 2 RBs out, one of which may be best RB in nation.

- Next they beat a decimated Florida team "ranked" #22 in the nation.

- Lose to Carolina (Shaw was out and played 2nd half injured, we had 3 turnovers and looked horrible)

- Wrap up the season beating Tennessee, Kentucky, and 2 of the SEC's most iffy teams: Ole Miss and Texas A&M.

South Carolina screwed their chances by losing to Tennessee on a miracle one-handed fade route catch on the sidelines.

However, while I think they deserve some credit (11 wins is great in any league, they lost their QB for a few games, and they were the least likely candidate when the season started)...I am skeptical of Mizzou, still- they probably have the weakest resume of any 10+ win team. Then again, maybe it takes a little bit of luck at the right time to make it to big places.

I think am mostly bitter that we have beat the SEC East representative the past 3 years.

Mostly?

[Lee Noire]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

The PAC-12 CG isn't at a neutral site? Aren't all the conference championship games at neutral sites?

[Cola]

Gary Pinkel would get my vote for coach of the year. Out ing standing. Took a 5-7 team that turned into an SEC laughingstock, and someone who everyone thought would be in the cellar with Kentucky and Tennessee. Instead, took them to 11-1 an SEC East title, while losing a starting QB midway through their toughest stretch of the season. Also, that 11-1 could very easily be 12-0 and in the midst of the national championship race. Of course Cutcliffe will probably get it, but my vote should got to Pinkel. Hell of a coup by him, and good for Missouri.

I hate to take anything away from Mizzou because the facts are that they finished the regular season 11-1 and will play in the SECCG. However, I don't know if I've ever seen a more perfect storm of favor develop for a team in the SEC.

- Their first 4 opponents were Murray State, Toledo, Indiana, and Arkansas State.

- They play Georgia at their weakest in 50 years...3 starting receivers out and Top 2 RBs out, one of which may be best RB in nation.

- Next they beat a decimated Florida team "ranked" #22 in the nation.

- Lose to Carolina (Shaw was out and played 2nd half injured, we had 3 turnovers and looked horrible)

- Wrap up the season beating Tennessee, Kentucky, and 2 of the SEC's most iffy teams: Ole Miss and Texas A&M.

South Carolina screwed their chances by losing to Tennessee on a miracle one-handed fade route catch on the sidelines.

However, while I think they deserve some credit (11 wins is great in any league, they lost their QB for a few games, and they were the least likely candidate when the season started)...I am skeptical of Mizzou, still- they probably have the weakest resume of any 10+ win team. Then again, maybe it takes a little bit of luck at the right time to make it to big places.

I think am mostly bitter that we have beat the SEC East representative the past 3 years.

Mostly?

Can't you tell?

[dbadefense1990]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

The PAC-12 CG isn't at a neutral site? Aren't all the conference championship games at neutral sites?

The PAC-12 has only had a conference title game for the last 3-4 years, and they've always been at the finalist with the better record. I really don't know why is that. If it were me, I'd have it rotated between the major cities encompassing the conference (Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle).

[DS729]

Gary Pinkel would get my vote for coach of the year. Out ing standing. Took a 5-7 team that turned into an SEC laughingstock, and someone who everyone thought would be in the cellar with Kentucky and Tennessee. Instead, took them to 11-1 an SEC East title, while losing a starting QB midway through their toughest stretch of the season. Also, that 11-1 could very easily be 12-0 and in the midst of the national championship race. Of course Cutcliffe will probably get it, but my vote should got to Pinkel. Hell of a coup by him, and good for Missouri.

I hate to take anything away from Mizzou because the facts are that they finished the regular season 11-1 and will play in the SECCG. However, I don't know if I've ever seen a more perfect storm of favor develop for a team in the SEC.

- Their first 4 opponents were Murray State, Toledo, Indiana, and Arkansas State.

- They play Georgia at their weakest in 50 years...3 starting receivers out and Top 2 RBs out, one of which may be best RB in nation.

- Next they beat a decimated Florida team "ranked" #22 in the nation.

- Lose to Carolina (Shaw was out and played 2nd half injured, we had 3 turnovers and looked horrible)

- Wrap up the season beating Tennessee, Kentucky, and 2 of the SEC's most iffy teams: Ole Miss and Texas A&M.

South Carolina screwed their chances by losing to Tennessee on a miracle one-handed fade route catch on the sidelines.

However, while I think they deserve some credit (11 wins is great in any league, they lost their QB for a few games, and they were the least likely candidate when the season started)...I am skeptical of Mizzou, still- they probably have the weakest resume of any 10+ win team. Then again, maybe it takes a little bit of luck at the right time to make it to big places.

I think am mostly bitter that we have beat the SEC East representative the past 3 years.

Mostly?

Can't you tell?

Yes, but remember Missouri beat UGA, and Florida without their starting QB, same goes for the loss against the Gamecocks. Georgia still had Murray, and that enough made them at least a decent team. Florida hadn't quite gone up in flames yet, all though they were pretty much there, and they gave away the game to South Carolina. Beating Ole Miss and A&M isn't that bad either they're pretty "iffy" because they've lost every game they've played to against a better team.

Speaking of Manziel, he went 0-5 against ranked opponents this year, no way he should even be on the Heisman ballot.

[dfwabel]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

The PAC-12 CG isn't at a neutral site? Aren't all the conference championship games at neutral sites?

The PAC-12 has only had a conference title game for the last 3-4 years, and they've always been at the finalist with the better record. I really don't know why is that. If it were me, I'd have it rotated between the major cities encompassing the conference (Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle).

They are too geographically separated for one and they have been on record that a home game makes the regular season matter more.

[DS729]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

The PAC-12 CG isn't at a neutral site? Aren't all the conference championship games at neutral sites?

The PAC-12 has only had a conference title game for the last 3-4 years, and they've always been at the finalist with the better record. I really don't know why is that. If it were me, I'd have it rotated between the major cities encompassing the conference (Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle).

They are too geographically separated for one and they have been on record that a home game makes the regular season matter more.

I heard a rumor that they would put it in the new 49ers stadium. That fits the middle of the conference, and they aren't too geographically spread out. The ACC has one in Charlotte, and it works fine.

[Lee Noire]

Arizona State has had an awesome season but they will lose to Stanford. Even in Tempe.

The PAC-12 CG isn't at a neutral site? Aren't all the conference championship games at neutral sites?

The PAC-12 has only had a conference title game for the last 3-4 years, and they've always been at the finalist with the better record. I really don't know why is that. If it were me, I'd have it rotated between the major cities encompassing the conference (Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle).

They are too geographically separated for one and they have been on record that a home game makes the regular season matter more.

The finalists or the conference as a whole? I ask because compared to other conferences the PAC 12 seems to actually get it right in terms of geography.

[dfwabel]

Who said that DScruggy?

Larry Scott to ESPN PAC-12 blogger, Ted Miller in July:

http://espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=pac12&id=59302&src=desktop

LS: We knew we were creating something new with the conference championship game. And our conference is not like any other conference. We're not a driving conference. We're not the SEC, we're not the Big 12, where you can plunk this game down in a central, neutral site where people can drive to it. Even the Big Ten's got that, though less so now since their recent expansion. I really believe our unique model of the home-hosted championship is the right one for us in terms of getting the best crowds and rewarding the team and their fan base for having the best record. And not having those fans buy another airline ticket and create a choice between going to the championship game or a bowl game. I really believe in my bones this is the right thing for us long term. The first year it felt like a good choice. It was not a great matchup but it was sold out. But last year's game caused me to pause. I still believe we have the best model, but I'd be the first to say that if it's not working over a period of time -- if we have more years like Stanford last year -- I'll be the first to say let's look at a different model. Because we've got people knocking down our door wanting to host a neutral-site championship game, up and down the conference. We've got plenty of options. It's been us resisting, even though there are some advantages -- knowing where it's going to be, being able to plan -- but we're going to give this model some more time before we draw a conclusion.