The whole football polling system, BCS and bowl games would be well served if Boise State would go undefeated. Throwing the BCS system...as though we believe the money interests care....may force a national playoff tournament.....but alas...money will again to be supreme.
Maybe it is the blue turf that does not show up well on TV...
Boise State
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
Boise State
Statistics are the Morphine of College Football
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21056
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
What would be so great about a playoff? Why would you want to take a system that currently allows 56 teams into post season and turn it into a system that only allows 8 to 16 teams? If you believe that teams like Boise State are excluded from the system we have now, why in the world do you think reducing the number of teams would help that situation?
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
Playoffs would ruin college football as we know it...
In college football now, every game and every weekend counts...the interest maintains throughout the season. We all care what happens in other conferences and with other teams because evrything interconnects.
A top 10 team loses a games and the whole fabric of football feels the tremble.
Basketball and baseball have playoffs...and who cares how the tregular season goes? As long as you make the playoffs.
If the Top 8 teams were taken for a playoff, Boise wouldn't be one of them...nor Top 16.
Boise has not beat anybody to show that they belong in a playoff.
In college football now, every game and every weekend counts...the interest maintains throughout the season. We all care what happens in other conferences and with other teams because evrything interconnects.
A top 10 team loses a games and the whole fabric of football feels the tremble.
Basketball and baseball have playoffs...and who cares how the tregular season goes? As long as you make the playoffs.
If the Top 8 teams were taken for a playoff, Boise wouldn't be one of them...nor Top 16.
Boise has not beat anybody to show that they belong in a playoff.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”
Exactly, billybud and Spence. All a playoff would do is devalue the regular season and lose interest. Take college basketball for example. A good deal of people like college basketball, but it doesn't reach the big, big stage until March Madness. Is that what we would want college football to be?
And, in this sport we also have 28 teams that can end their season on a positive note. I think that's a good thing.
And, in this sport we also have 28 teams that can end their season on a positive note. I think that's a good thing.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
The original reason the bowl series was expanded to the current format was to flood more programs with money to help make them competitive. The elite few were getting all the money every year. Teams couldn't afford the big fields with large fan capacities, so every recruit wanted to go play in the big stadiums under the lights. These teams continued to build their training rooms, and their facilities had state of the art equipment, and yet some of the lesser teams trying to compete had hardly anything. The congress investigated college football as a monopoly. Seem strange? Not really, those who had the spotlight didn't want the others to have the same advantage as they did. Since the beginning of the BCS system, congress has had some concerns about it. The BCS teams are getting 7mil to 8mil for an appearance, where as top teams outside the BCS are getting 1.5mil tops. I hope you see where this is going.
If you go to a playoff system, college football will revert to elite teams getting all the money. Recruits will be more likely to go to schools that go to the playoffs every year, and the playoff schools will be the only teams able to afford the salaries of high profile coaches.
This would still be the case, but thankfully the conference's T.V. proceeds are spread amongst the teams. So conferences like the Big East, and SEC who have four teams in their conference in the top 25 are making a good amount of money off the proceeds. Does it seem fair that Mississippi St. gets a share when they are 1-4? Probably not, but it gives the school opportunity to pay a coaching staff, and be able to afford to go out and recruit.
It is also my contention that the best teams in college football don't always play for the title. If your team plays twelve games against poor teams, its very likely that they will go undefeated. While your cross town rival plays twelve ranked tough physical teams. They win the first four, and then the injuries start to pile up from having to giving 150% every week. The games start to get closer, and closer until finally a key player goes down, (Smith, Irons, Booty, Slaton, Tebow, Manningham, Mccoy (Louisville already lost Brohm.)). A well timed bye week may help, but over the next eight games they're likely to drop at least a couple due to injuries, and exhaustion. The championship games often have the teams that weathered the toughest schedules, and were lucky enough to escape the injuries. The best championship runs are the teams with three top 25 teams, and the rest a mixture of mid level to cellar dwelling teams. The team can easily step through undefeated, and claim their shot at the title.
Question my theory? Just look at USC.
If you go to a playoff system, college football will revert to elite teams getting all the money. Recruits will be more likely to go to schools that go to the playoffs every year, and the playoff schools will be the only teams able to afford the salaries of high profile coaches.
This would still be the case, but thankfully the conference's T.V. proceeds are spread amongst the teams. So conferences like the Big East, and SEC who have four teams in their conference in the top 25 are making a good amount of money off the proceeds. Does it seem fair that Mississippi St. gets a share when they are 1-4? Probably not, but it gives the school opportunity to pay a coaching staff, and be able to afford to go out and recruit.
It is also my contention that the best teams in college football don't always play for the title. If your team plays twelve games against poor teams, its very likely that they will go undefeated. While your cross town rival plays twelve ranked tough physical teams. They win the first four, and then the injuries start to pile up from having to giving 150% every week. The games start to get closer, and closer until finally a key player goes down, (Smith, Irons, Booty, Slaton, Tebow, Manningham, Mccoy (Louisville already lost Brohm.)). A well timed bye week may help, but over the next eight games they're likely to drop at least a couple due to injuries, and exhaustion. The championship games often have the teams that weathered the toughest schedules, and were lucky enough to escape the injuries. The best championship runs are the teams with three top 25 teams, and the rest a mixture of mid level to cellar dwelling teams. The team can easily step through undefeated, and claim their shot at the title.
Question my theory? Just look at USC.
fluiddude wrote:Vileborg wrote:The best championship runs are the teams with three top 25 teams, and the rest a mixture of mid level to cellar dwelling teams. The team can easily step through undefeated, and claim their shot at the title.
Question my theory? Just look at USC.
I thought you were talking about the SEC
Uhh....What SEC team easily steps through undefeated....EVER??
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
-
colorado_loves_football
Eric wrote:Exactly, billybud and Spence. All a playoff would do is devalue the regular season and lose interest. Take college basketball for example. A good deal of people like college basketball, but it doesn't reach the big, big stage until March Madness. Is that what we would want college football to be?
And, in this sport we also have 28 teams that can end their season on a positive note. I think that's a good thing.
This argument is specific to Boise St. First of all Boise St, hasn't won a BCS 'bid'. They aren't even ranked top-15, which is a prerequisite for BCS consideration, so they still have some work to do.
Secondly, even if they go undefeated I don't think they'll play in the NC.
Too many variables, IMO. A Big East team will likely finish the year undefeated. And, even if it's Rutgers, they will likely finish ranked higher than Boise St, which means they (Broncos) will probably be in the Fiesta Bowl, in that event, which I think is fairly unlikely, regardless.
I think Fresno St will beat Boise St. Call me crazy, Pat Hill, I believe, has finally exorcised those Demons, but can't seem to win the confernece, even in good years (as was the case a year ago).
Boise St, has a very good team, definitely top-25. But, I doubt they will be in the BCS. For one thing, the last time they went 11-0 (2004) they weren't, unless the Liberty Bowl counts as BCS (top-ten ranking). And, they lost their game to Louisville (44-40). A very good game, but I don't think they give medals for '2nd place'.
The competitive bar has been set, and it's pretty high (top-12 BCS ranking). Boise St, won't get there. I think Texas Christian still has a better shot at it. Losing to BYU, might keep them from winning the conference, outright, but they hold an advantage over them, wins. And, BYU, nearly always loses to some team, down the stretch they have no business losing to. I think Texas Christian still has the best shot, IMO.
I really felt that Houston might have had a shot to have a liftoff season. I think they'd be a lock for the BCS even though they would've beated a downtrodden Miami team. Now, that's probably not the case.
Boise State has a huge advantage because they're really the only undefeated, non-BCS team. They have a relatively easy schedule, considering the WAC is in a funk this year, but every road game for Boise State has the potential to be a tight game.
Boise State has a huge advantage because they're really the only undefeated, non-BCS team. They have a relatively easy schedule, considering the WAC is in a funk this year, but every road game for Boise State has the potential to be a tight game.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
Arizona isn't any good this year, Washington is overrated at this point, Arizona State is not a good football team, UCLA might be down at the moment, Oregon State is not a good football team, and Stanford is really, really bad. That's just how the conference stacks up this year, IMO. It is true that all of these schools have had their moments over the last couple years.
Even so, I think this is true with most major conferences across the nation. This season is so baffling with usually mediocre to good teams playing pretty bad thus far. I mean look at the Big 12, ACC, or the Big 10! Teams like Wisconsin, Kansas State, and Miami have usually been pretty good teams, but this year none of them are anything special.
Even so, I think this is true with most major conferences across the nation. This season is so baffling with usually mediocre to good teams playing pretty bad thus far. I mean look at the Big 12, ACC, or the Big 10! Teams like Wisconsin, Kansas State, and Miami have usually been pretty good teams, but this year none of them are anything special.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
Spence wrote:Most team don't play anymore then 3 quality teams during the season. The mid levels are the difference in SOS.
Exactly...Fluid it's not like USC faced a lot of challenges either.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
-
Dossenator
- Moderator
- Posts: 5294
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: Back in NW Arkansas!!!!
- Contact:
Fluiddude...you talk down on Miss. State, Ole Miss, etc. because they have been bad for the past 2 or 3 years. Here are a few examples when they made noise in the SEC in the past few years:
2003 Ole Miss (10-3) and beat Oklahoma State in the Cotton Bowl.
-key wins Florida, Alabama, and at Auburn.
1999 Miss State (10-2) and beat Clemson in the Peach Bowl (losing only
to Bama and Arkansas -key wins at Auburn, LSU)
1998 Miss State (8-5) won the SEC WEST Division Title and played
Tennessee in the SEC Championship game (losing and Tennesse
went on to win the National Championship). Miss State then lost
to Texas in the Cotton Bowl.
I can name a few more years since 1998 that both of these teams played in a bowl game. They are not always as bad as this year or last.
2003 Ole Miss (10-3) and beat Oklahoma State in the Cotton Bowl.
-key wins Florida, Alabama, and at Auburn.
1999 Miss State (10-2) and beat Clemson in the Peach Bowl (losing only
to Bama and Arkansas -key wins at Auburn, LSU)
1998 Miss State (8-5) won the SEC WEST Division Title and played
Tennessee in the SEC Championship game (losing and Tennesse
went on to win the National Championship). Miss State then lost
to Texas in the Cotton Bowl.
I can name a few more years since 1998 that both of these teams played in a bowl game. They are not always as bad as this year or last.
"A team with something to play for is dangerous, but a team with someone to play for is unstoppable..." Arkansas OL Brey Cook quote following the death of teammate Garrett Uekman (Nov. 2011).
Well, that's where I disagree with you fluiddude. I think outside of Ohio State and a semi-overrated Michigan team, this conference has nothing. I'm still a little skeptical of Michigan because people just want to elevate this team up to where they were a couple years ago. I think the record this year will be somewhat of a smokescreen with a BCS at-large bid coming our way because the Big 10 is so mediocre.
I've posted on this several times, and I really believe that Purdue should not be a 4-1 team if they have played anybody, Iowa has not looked that good this year, Indiana lost to Southern Illinois and almost got beat by Western Michigan and Ball State and they got beat by a lowly UConn team, Illinois is Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Minnesota and mediocre, Michigan State's annual downward spiral is occuring, and Northwestern is having some tough times.
I really think this year is terrible for those schools that are in the middle of the pack in the bigger conferences. This leads me to think that the ACC, even though it is having a down year, is still in that top 2 discussion.
The Big 12 has an awful Kansas State team, mediocre teams in Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and Iowa State, Baylor is bad, Texas Tech is not very good this year, and the list goes on and on.
If I had to make a ranking, this would be it:
1. SEC
2. ACC
3. Big 12
4. Big 10
5. Pac-10
6. Big East
7. MWC
8. C-USA
9. WAC
10. MAC
11. Sun Belt
I've posted on this several times, and I really believe that Purdue should not be a 4-1 team if they have played anybody, Iowa has not looked that good this year, Indiana lost to Southern Illinois and almost got beat by Western Michigan and Ball State and they got beat by a lowly UConn team, Illinois is Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Minnesota and mediocre, Michigan State's annual downward spiral is occuring, and Northwestern is having some tough times.
I really think this year is terrible for those schools that are in the middle of the pack in the bigger conferences. This leads me to think that the ACC, even though it is having a down year, is still in that top 2 discussion.
The Big 12 has an awful Kansas State team, mediocre teams in Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and Iowa State, Baylor is bad, Texas Tech is not very good this year, and the list goes on and on.
If I had to make a ranking, this would be it:
1. SEC
2. ACC
3. Big 12
4. Big 10
5. Pac-10
6. Big East
7. MWC
8. C-USA
9. WAC
10. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
colorado_loves_football
I'm not sure I agree with you entirely, Eric. Arizona isn't a bad team, at home (evidenced in part by their win, over BYU, opening day).Eric wrote:Arizona isn't any good this year, Washington is overrated at this point, Arizona State is not a good football team, UCLA might be down at the moment, Oregon State is not a good football team, and Stanford is really, really bad. That's just how the conference stacks up this year, IMO. It is true that all of these schools have had their moments over the last couple years.
Even so, I think this is true with most major conferences across the nation. This season is so baffling with usually mediocre to good teams playing pretty bad thus far. I mean look at the Big 12, ACC, or the Big 10! Teams like Wisconsin, Kansas State, and Miami have usually been pretty good teams, but this year none of them are anything special.
And Washington has lost only one game, so far, a road game against Oklahoma (followed by wins over UCLA & Arizona). UCLA, appears to be 'down', despite beating Stanford, handily (7-0 at halftime).
I'm not sure how good (or bad) Stanford is, either. They nearly beat N.D. last year, and Walt Harris isn't a bad coach, in my estimation, but I guess we'll see if they do an 'encore' performance, in S. Bend, IN.
Arizona St, ranked before losing to California. Oregon St, has been in some 'shootouts' against 'high-powered' offenses (California, Boise St).
I think the Pac-Ten is actually a lot more 'balanced' top-to-bottom this go-around. Wisconsin has a very good football team, K-State isn't that bad.
I still think Miami, is a pretty good football team, personally. Houston hadn't lost a game, going into last Saturday's contest. Houston probably should have won, but Miami's defense held strong, as did their offense.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests