Just a Bunch of Thoughts

[Eric]

1. Does anybody else here miss ABC Sports? This "ESPN on ABC" thing is starting to bug me. I was watching a re-run of a game on ABC from last year on ESPNU the other day, and I'm really starting to miss the graphics and the theme song. It just seemed so college football to me.....
Don't get me wrong, I can live with ESPN's stuff, it just doesn't seem normal.

2. I miss Mike Tirico. I think he's doing a good job with the Monday Night Football, but seriously, the guy loves college football. I can tell because he was much more passionate about college football. He tried to capture the emotion of the game last night, but he doesn't exactly do it because it isn't genuine. The NFL has nothing on college football.
Todd Blackledge, Tim Brandt, David Norrie, and Ed Cunningham have very little to offer to the broadcast. These guys sound like your run-of-the-mill announcers, does anybody else like listening to these guys? Oh yeah, and Paul Maguire is brutal. I miss Nessler and Greise together themsevles. And Bob Davie is brutal too. Get Ron Franklin and Mike Gottfried back together darn it!!! I really need for ESPN to wake up with these announcing match-ups

3. I actually think Tulsa is the best non-BCS conference team. I think the BYU game was somewhat flukey. Tulsa and Boise are about on the same level, IMO. Oh yeah, notice to the Golden Hurricane: When I jumped on TCU's and Houston's bandwagon, they stunk all of a sudden. Don't say I didn't warn you guys

4. The best one-loss team is Texas. Colt McCoy has come a loooooooong way since that Ohio State game.

5. The Big East is good, guys. If you actually look at conferences per team, 50% of the conference is good. Since there are 8 teams. WVU, Louisville, Pitt, and Rutgers are all pretty good. Say like the SEC (12 teams) who really only has 5 good teams, a handful of average ones, and some very bad ones. A lot of the criticism is unfair for the Big East because they only have 8 teams (tied with the Sun Belt for the smallest conference in the nation I believe) and they are bouncing back from the ACC raiding their conference of their top teams which made them resort to get some C-USA teams .

[colorado_loves_football]

1. Does anybody else here miss ABC Sports? This "ESPN on ABC" thing is starting to bug me. I was watching a re-run of a game on ABC from last year on ESPNU the other day, and I'm really starting to miss the graphics and the theme song. It just seemed so college football to me.....
Don't get me wrong, I can live with ESPN's stuff, it just doesn't seem normal.

There are a few things I miss about the networks broadcasts, but not that much. I think part of the problem is finding good analysts, and keeping them, regardless of where they work. Sean McDonough does a good job, IMO. Mike Gottfried isn't bad, either.

2. I miss Mike Tirico. I think he's doing a good job with the Monday Night Football, but seriously, the guy loves college football. I can tell because he was much more passionate about college football. He tried to capture the emotion of the game last night, but he doesn't exactly do it because it isn't genuine. The NFL has nothing on college football.
Todd Blackledge, Tim Brandt, David Norrie, and Ed Cunningham have very little to offer to the broadcast. These guys sound like your run-of-the-mill announcers, does anybody else like listening to these guys? Oh yeah, and Paul Maguire is brutal. I miss Nessler and Greise together themsevles. And Bob Davie is brutal too. Get Ron Franklin and Mike Gottfried back together darn it!!! I really need for ESPN to wake up with these announcing match-ups

I like Mike Terico. I think he does a pretty good job, doesn't seem to get mired in all the politics. One announcer I generally like is Brent Musburger, lately he's been wearing a little thin. There's only so much a broadcaster can do to 'enhance' the game, anyway. Kirk Herbstreit does a lot better job in the 'studio' I think his emotions get the best of him, as an analyst (last year's Alamo Bowl, for example). Horribly biased, IMO, but who isn't?

3. I actually think Tulsa is the best non-BCS conference team. I think the BYU game was somewhat flukey. Tulsa and Boise are about on the same level, IMO. Oh yeah, notice to the Golden Hurricane: When I jumped on TCU's and Houston's bandwagon, they stunk all of a sudden. Don't say I didn't warn you guys

I'ts hard to say, I think Navy had a good team before Brian Hampton got hurt (despite Tulsa's win over the Midshipmen). Good pick, though. BYU is better.

4. The best one-loss team is Texas. Colt McCoy has come a loooooooong way since that Ohio State game.

It isn't just about Colt McCoy but you are correct, Texas has an outstanding football team, in nearly every aspect I can think of. Against Baylor, they never relinquished their lead, despite a valiant effort by the Bears. Say what you want, I think the Bears are a good team, overall.

5. The Big East is good, guys. If you actually look at conferences per team, 50% of the conference is good. Since there are 8 teams. WVU, Louisville, Pitt, and Rutgers are all pretty good. Say like the SEC (12 teams) who really only has 5 good teams, a handful of average ones, and some very bad ones. A lot of the criticism is unfair for the Big East because they only have 8 teams (tied with the Sun Belt for the smallest conference in the nation I believe) and they are bouncing back from the ACC raiding their conference of their top teams which made them resort to get some C-USA teams .

They've had 8 for as long as I can remember (2004, only 7). They will likely add a team, in the 'not too distant' future, assuming that's their aim.
As far as the circumstances surrounding their 'expansion' that might have been inevitable, believe it or not.
First of all, Miami, FL is a lot better suited, geographically, to the ACC. Secondly, Virginia Tech left 'willingly', there wasn't a lot of 'tug' involved.
Finally, Boston College left on their own volition, despite some effort to keep them in the Big East, in effect, those schools left willingly.
As far as C-USA goes, Louisville wanted to 'move up', as did Cincinnati.
S. Florida, while out of place, geographically, was a 'logical' choice, also.

[Howdy]

[

quote="Eric"][list]1. Does anybody else here miss ABC Sports? This "ESPN on ABC" thing is starting to bug me. I was watching a re-run of a game on ABC from last year on ESPNU the other day, and I'm really starting to miss the graphics and the theme song. It just seemed so college football to me.....
Don't get me wrong, I can live with ESPN's stuff, it just doesn't seem normal.

Get uses to it.

ABC is the owner of ESPN and all of there channels.
So this will go on for some time to come.

[Jason G]

I'm going to see Tulsa in a week or two when they play UTEP... it's supposed to be on ESPN2... never been to a Golden Hurricane game... though I have been in Skelley Stadium before. I had them ranked at the beginning of the season... and I do think that game was pretty flukey... but it was still a silly loss and they've got to prove something more before they'll get ranked again... I think a huge blowout this week at Memphis could put them back on the radar... but they'll have to win huge to do it.

That should be a great game to attend! I actually think UTEP has a great shot at taking Tulsa down in that game. I think those are two of the best non-BCS teams this year.

[Eric]

I'm a little iffy on the Miners at this point. UTEP should be bowling, though. I think Tulsa and USM are head and shoulders about the rest of the conference, but if Jordan Palmer uses his head and makes smart throws - the interceptions, UTEP has a good enough shot.

[Vileborg]

The list of one loss teams is growing, and there are a few names on the list who could argue their case. Right now, I'd have to go with Cal, but I wouldn't rule out Tennessee, or Texas.

How do you rank teams in tough conferences. If you have an 8 team conference, and all 8 of them start out in the top ten, how would you rank them. One team could technically be 5-7, and be better than 111 other teams. The worst part about the whole scenario is that most likely none of them would escape unbeaten. Meaning out of the eight best teams in the nation, none of them would play for the national title.
This brings up another question. If you beat the 2nd ranked team in the country decisively, and then they are dropped to 17th, do you still get credit for the 2nd place team, or only their current 17th place rank. What if that 2nd place team you beat then dropped their remaining four games, and ended up 70th. Does your quality win then begin to hurt you because the other team gave up on their season?

Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, California are all products of tough schedules. If California beats USC, then the circle will be fully complete, which is looking more likely every week.

There does seem to be a lot more parody in College Football, enough so that if we're not careful we may find ourselves with only an undefeated Boise St. Now wouldn't that be a mess.

[Howdy]

The list of one loss teams is growing, and there are a few names on the list who could argue their case. Right now, I'd have to go with Cal, but I wouldn't rule out Tennessee, or Texas.

How do you rank teams in tough conferences. If you have an 8 team conference, and all 8 of them start out in the top ten, how would you rank them. One team could technically be 5-7, and be better than 111 other teams. The worst part about the whole scenario is that most likely none of them would escape unbeaten. Meaning out of the eight best teams in the nation, none of them would play for the national title.
This brings up another question. If you beat the 2nd ranked team in the country decisively, and then they are dropped to 17th, do you still get credit for the 2nd place team, or only their current 17th place rank. What if that 2nd place team you beat then dropped their remaining four games, and ended up 70th. Does your quality win then begin to hurt you because the other team gave up on their season?

Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, California are all products of tough schedules. If California beats USC, then the circle will be fully complete, which is looking more likely every week.

There does seem to be a lot more parody in College Football, enough so that if we're not careful we may find ourselves with only an undefeated Boise St. Now wouldn't that be a mess.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may very well happen with S85

When schooll can only have 85 on scholarship there are more players with the talent to go around. to some of these smaller schools.

[colorado_loves_football]

The list of one loss teams is growing, and there are a few names on the list who could argue their case. Right now, I'd have to go with Cal, but I wouldn't rule out Tennessee, or Texas.

There are a LOT of good teams, with one loss, too many to count. I think the point is that you can lose a game, and still be a NC contender.

How do you rank teams in tough conferences. If you have an 8 team conference, and all 8 of them start out in the top ten, how would you rank them. One team could technically be 5-7, and be better than 111 other teams. The worst part about the whole scenario is that most likely none of them would escape unbeaten. Meaning out of the eight best teams in the nation, none of them would play for the national title.

Apply your argument to the Big East. 4 teams are ranked (nearly). Another one (S. Florida) is on the 'fringes'. 5/8, for all intents & purposes, ranked 'high' in the polls. Only one 'assured' a BCS bid.

Which brings up another question. If you beat the 2nd ranked team in the country decisively, and then they are dropped to 17th, do you still get credit for the 2nd place team, or only their current 17th place rank. What if that 2nd place team you beat then dropped their remaining four games, and ended up 70th. Does your quality win then begin to hurt you because the other team gave up on their season?

If you are referring to Arkansas vs. Auburn, it was Arkansas that was ranked #17 following that game. They 'jumped' into the #17 slot, following the win. They 'earn' credit for beating the #2 team, IMO.

Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, California are all products of tough schedules. If California beats USC, then the circle will be fully complete, which is looking more likely every week.

Most teams play 'competitive' schedules, IMO. Is a Pac-Ten schedule necessarily tougher than say a Big East schedule? Or a MWC schedule? Perhaps.
But, I'm still convinced that giving a 'bid' to a team, irrespective of where they play, would serve to make the BCS a lot more competitive.

There does seem to be a lot more parody in College Football, enough so that if we're not careful we may find ourselves with only an undefeated Boise St. Now wouldn't that be a mess.

Again, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Undefeated doesn't necesssarily mean 'better' although it could. With respect to Boise St. they will likely be fortunate to make the BCS, much less play for the NC.
That's the problem with the way the BCS is structured, presently. Not much 'wiggle' room for an 'at large' to win a NC. A fairly simple 'restructuring' would allow for a 'concensus' national champion.

[billybud]

Oh horsefeathers! A one loss Auburn or Michigan or USC or Tennessee or Florida should be in a BCS game way, way ahead of an undefeated Boise State.

Who you beat is important...It is a measure of how good your team is. Handing out BCS berths for "equity" is the affirmative action of football.

"Let's make sure everyone has a chance to play". Its like how students can get into law school with a lower score if they meet certain ethnic/racial requirements. But is it fair to the student who gets turned down, who has a higher grade than the minorities who were accepted?

[Spence]

Who you beat is important...It is a measure of how good your team is. Handing out BCS berths for "equity" is the affirmative action of football.

There is no use even trying this one BB. I have spent endless time and space making this point that, is pretty much a common sense point, and the more sense you make the more it gets rejected.

Who you beat does matter, as well as who beats you matters. When you are trying to compare teams who do not play each other, you have to take into account who they have played. You look at how the have beat those teams and you also look at how their competition has faired in comparison with other teams that are good. A team like Boise State could be better then we believe, but if they do not get credit for it, it is their fault.

You at the very least have to have one good team on your schedule to give anyone a clue to how good you are that season. Boise State can come up with a couple average teams, but not one good one in a twelve game schedule.

[Spence]

I don't think it is done yet, but it doesn't look like it is going to go anywhere.

[donovan]

There does seem to be a lot more parody in College Football, enough so that if we're not careful we may find ourselves with only an undefeated Boise St. Now wouldn't that be a mess.

Not sure how to quote....what the heck......

A mess.....Not going to happen but it would be interesting. All I can say, is the talk in Boise is "why all the hoop when we are playing Idaho...not exactly the powerhouse of anything. Actually, when it was suggested they not play this intra state rivalry, the legislature got involved and basically...these are state schools and we will take care of Idahoians first...not a bad philosophy, just hard to swing with the big players, if only for a fleeting moment.

[Spence]

Putting you SEC bias aside, I agree with you. Every conference should set up tough OOC games. I think the six majors could get away with playing one tough OOC game a year, where as the mid majors should play at least a couple. That would make up for some of the weaker games.

Tuberville can whine all he likes, but if the only way to truely compare conferences is for teams to play some tough OOC games early. Using Tuberville's theory, I could say the B-10 is actually tough this year. Indiana beat Iowa and Iowa is a very good team so Indiana makes the B-10 deep. Except for one problem, Iowa isn't very good this year and Indiana pulls them down, not vice versa.

The SEC could be very, very good this year. But it is also possible that they are pretty good five or six teams down, but not really great anywhere. You really have no way of knowing until they get into bowl season, unless they play tough OOC games early.

Tennessee did and has looked pretty good all year. Florida beat Tennessee so it would figure that the SEC is very good this year, but you really need more to go on to be sure.

[donovan]

Oh horsefeathers!

Anyone that quotes Groucho Marx can not be all bad...

or good....

[Spence]

Spence... there's also something to be said about ooc vs conference play... conference play will always be different because those teams play regularly... they know each other and they know better how to defeat each other.

Out of conference is where you really measure up conferences against each other. Without playing against other conferences of similar class, then you can't really compare with any certainty.

Tuberville had/has absolutely no right to argue this year... they played pansy teams for ooc and they aren't going undefeated anyway... he needs to shut his mouth unless his team can back it up.

That actually was what I was trying to say, I just didn't do it well. I agree with you. Conference play, in every league, is usually competitive. The teams know exactly who you are and what you do well. Some of these teams have been playing each other for 100 years. OOC play is different, these games should be a measure of a teams strength. You should schedule at least one competitive OOC game (home and on the road). Auburn doesn't like to leave the south OOC. So if they find themselves with a loss and shut out of the championship, I have no simpathy for them. Tuberville has been shut out before, he knows how to fix it. He should stop whining and do just that.