May 1, 2006
BCS eases at-large requirements
With the addition of a fifth BCS bowl game for this season, Bowl Championship Series officials announced a slight easing of the at-large qualification requirements:
- Instead of having to finish in the top 12 of the final BCS standings, teams finishing in the top 14 will now be eligible for a BCS game.
- Any Division I-A team is eligible for at-large consideration.
- Automatic qualifiers:
- No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the final BCS standings
- Big East, Big Ten, SEC, Pac10, Big 12 and ACC champions
- Notre Dame (if it finishes in the top eight)
- a non-BCS team that finishes in the top 12, or in the top 16 if they're ahead of a BCS champion
Comments:
Regan said:
posted on May 3, 2006 5:29 AM — 24.168.240.63 — link — abuse?
Maurice (#2):
They were limited to two; I can't imagine that changing, since the new rules are supposed to benefit the smaller conferences and lessen the chance the BCS would be sued.
I was for the BCS until an undefeated SEC Champ was left out of the title game; with 12x Games per year, three undefeated teams is even more unlikely.
Martin (#3):That would never, ever happen (speaks while nodding head and winking...)
Rusty Shackelford (#5):Vanderbilt (13-0) vs. Rutgers (12-0) for the Championship of College Football! I like it!
ksuwild said:
posted on May 3, 2006 11:30 AM — 135.214.154.100 — link — abuse?
Even with most teams now playing 12 regular season games there is still a very good possibility that you could have multiple undefeated teams in the same season(it's happened multiple times over the past decade). The current system (even with the extra BCS game) has no answer for that scenerio...and never will until they bite the bullet and install a playoff. Playoff systems have worked in every sport and on every level...why wouldn't it work for college football. 1 vs.16, 2 vs.15, 3 vs.14, and so on and so forth. It's not that hard. After the first round you would already be down to 8 teams(4 games left)and the beautiful thing about it would be that no one...whether from a mid-major or major conference would have any argument. The Marshals and BYUs' would get their chance to play with the big boys and it would be time to put up or shut up. Every team from EVERY conference would know that all they have to do is make sure they are ranked in the top 16 of the BCS rankings at the end of the year and they would have a shot at playing for the National Championship. You could still keep the bowl tradition going with the rest of the bowl elegible teams(which there would be plenty of). This recent change the NCAA made is smoke and mirrors, they are trying to throw this bone out to the dogs and see if we will accept it...well I'm still hungry for a big plate of BCS Playoffs.
Regan said:
posted on May 3, 2006 8:09 PM — 205.188.116.133 — link — abuse?
ksuwild (#7):
The issue is only in doubt when there are three undefeated teams. This has only happened once in modern College Football, in 2004.
If there are two undefeated teams, there are no worries.
If there is one undefeated team, there is a problem because every one-loss team thinks they should be ranked #2.
IMHO, a Plus-One system is the most realistic and best for the sport. You ask "why wouldn't it work for college football?", and I respond by asking why CF has to have a playoff just because other sports do.
Radically changing the scope and emphasis of the seasons, bowls, post-season, etc, all just so two groups of fans don't have to bicker about 'co-champions' after all is said and done is pointless, IMHO.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 4, 2006 6:40 AM — 66.142.91.46 — link — abuse?
Sounds better the Utahs, TCU's and other Teams from the WAC,Conference USA and others ought to have a better shot. Aulburn got scewed in 04 and deserved a shot.What happens when you have 6,1 loss teams at the end of the year and no undefeated. In the seventies this happened several times. Some years there were two champions. Hookem Horns
Corey said:
posted on May 4, 2006 12:53 PM — 12.167.40.136 — link — abuse?
Auburn did not get worked over by the BCS in 2004. They were good but not great and got what they deserved. If bowls didn't have conference affiliations then they should have put Utah against Auburn and then we wouldn't have these Tiger fans with an undefeated "crutch" to lean on and to make unrealistic claims about how good they thought they were.
Franko G said:
posted on May 4, 2006 8:06 PM — 70.171.12.221 — link — abuse?
Corey,
You are a total idiot. I'm not even an Auburn Tiger fan, but honestly, what the hell are you talking about?? Are you trying to bash Auburn's 2004 team?...
to quote you,"..then we wouldn't have these Tiger fans with an undefeated 'crutch' to lean on and to make unrealistic claims.."
crutch?? what are you talking about man? Auburn beat more top 10 teams than anyone. They beat Tennessee twice! They beat LSU(top 10 team), they beat Georgia(Top 10 Team), and they beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl...and you're trying to say they're leaning on a crutch??
Dewd, wake up! That team had 4 first round draft picks in the NFL after that season. That team had Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Jason Campbell, and Carlos Rodgers(nasty defensive back who was drafted in the top 10 of the NFL draft)...now I dont really care much about NFL, but I'm just giving you an idea about the talent of that team. Yes, we know that yall had Alex Smith, but that guy was a product of a team who happened to dominate a weak conference that year. Trying to say Utah would have owned Auburn is just retarded. Freakin ridiculous, I don't know where you're coming from with that.
ute4ever said:
posted on May 5, 2006 11:59 AM — 68.111.250.194 — link — abuse?
In 2004, three non-BCS teams were ranked in the top 12: Utah, Boise State and Louisville.
So supposing the 2006 BCS rules were in place in 2004, the additional two spots would have been filled by Boise State and Louisville. Sorry Cal.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 6, 2006 10:27 AM — 66.142.91.46 — link — abuse?
Thanks Frank Ditto Utah could not hang in a conference like the Big 12.For years these folks have been trying to say that the big 12 is not as tough-BULL, just because Nebraska or Oklahoma is not dominating shows that the conference is tougher than it used to be. Utah could not even play or compete with the dogs from big 12. The dogs of the big 12 Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Baylor and Kansas State. they probably couldnt go undefeated against the dogs of the SEC either Tennesee, Arkansas ETC. Hookem Horns
kyle_style03 said:
posted on May 6, 2006 2:44 PM — 68.12.250.241 — link — abuse?
why not add a fan based poll to the bcs??? i know you would have a few with rice and central florida as #1 but after that #1 spot you would see what people where truly thinking and then you would know that an auburn of 03 should have played USC. i know i watch a lot of college football switching from abc nbc espn espn 2 and fsn constantly and i also know that personally i would be fair in a fanbased poll
ksuwild said:
posted on May 6, 2006 4:49 PM — 135.214.42.162 — link — abuse?
ARE YOU KIDDING REGAN??? It's hard for me to remember a year since the BCS started that there hasn't been a controversy...especially recently.
Off the top of my head. In 1998 K-State was undefeated and lost in OT to A&M in the Big XII Championship and dropped all the way down to the Alamo or something like that. Can't blame them for not getting up for their bowl. In 2000 Miami beat Florida St. and had the same one loss record and it was Florida St. who played in the National Championship? The very next year in 2001 Nebraska got killed by Colorado 62-36, didn't even win the Big XII North and somehow ended up playing for the National Championship? In 2003 K-State took OU behind the woodshed in the Big XII Championship and OU was still picked over a one loss(OT to CAL)USC team that whooped Michigan in their bowl that year...and for the record there were six one loss teams that year. In 2004 OU, USC, Auburn, Utah, all were undefeated, OU gets throttled in the Championship? How can you argue that any of those situations are acceptable or that a playoff wouldn't effectively squash any beef from any of those years? It's not that a playoff is the only answer...it's that it's the best answer. Question? What is the current systems answer to five different one loss teams, or six different two loss teams...the same for multiple undefeated teams. Nothing. That's right Regan...No answer that doesn't screw someone. Why leave those decisions to people when you can settle them on the field? A Playoff isn't something you would implement to keep two sides from bickering...you would implement it because it is the best system, that would be the best fit, and cause the least controversy for EVERYONE! As far as you saying the bickering is pointless...it always seems that way until it's your team getting scewed, then it's not so pointless huh.
posted on May 9, 2006 2:07 PM — 68.46.229.152 — link — abuse?Ben Prather said:
#5 & #6) Great, undefeated Rutgers and Vanderbilt go to the title, and undefeated SMU sits on the sidelines...
We need playoffs!!
#8) If there are two undefeaated teams, and one is a non-BCS team, whether they are picked over a one loss BCS team still remains a question.
#11) As a loyal Utah fan, we crashed the BCS party when the lines were drawn against us. Now a one loss MWC, C-USA, MAC or WAC should reasonably expect a spot in the BCS. An undefeated team, in any conference, would be in the BCS.
It is not about getting to the BCS and the big money that that brings. It is about access to the championship.
The title game has EXTREAMLY limited availability for non-BCS team.
#13) I remember 2004 very fondly. USC was dominant that year, and Auburn was the only team that realistically had a shot to defeat them. Oklahoma was a joke. Undefeated Utah was on a whole nother level from their compitition, so no one knew how good they really were. They performed better against the 3 common opponents they had with Oklahoma that year, and I was certain Utah would have destroyed Oklahoma.
Their were 4 undefeated teams. All 4 were in the BCS. Somehow these 4 teams should have been in two games. Most believe USC should have played Auburn for the title. This would have left Oklahoma to play Utah. As it was USC played Oklahoma for the title. This should have left Auburn and Utah to play each other.
Either way, we would have gotten a much better measure of how good Utah was than that Pittsburgh demolition we got. Was Auburn Virginia Tech a good game?
The BCS should commit to pairing undefeated teams whenever possible.
If a non-BCS team gets in, they should be paired with the best possible opponent. They will prove that they belong, or they will be shown to be out of thier league. Either way, it is good for college football.
ps) When I first heard about the 4 and one system I was excited. Then I found out they were just going to add another title bowl game after all the others.
What we really need is another game facing off the top two teams after all the bowls as the national title. We can restore the bowls (specifically the rose bowl) to the traditional lineups. The BCS bowls would still have a huge spot, as the top 2 teams are most certainly going to come from them.
Then, the top 2 conference champions who won thier bowl game should play in the national title, preference given to any team still undefeated after the current bowl system.Lets play the game the week before the NFL Super Bowl, so we don't have that annoying week without a football game to watch.Ok, I babble, just a thought.borNred said:
posted on May 10, 2006 3:46 PM — 68.99.27.75 — link — abuse?
this is why america is so diverse, you have the smart people and you have the ignorant people. the ones who think an undefeated season is a "crutch" give me a break citation for ignorance #1, and people who think Utah was a "great team" they played in weak @$$ conference and beat a pitt team that lost to my sh*tty Nebraska team. The evidence of a great Utah team is really starting to stack up.
JStewart4Heisman said:
posted on May 11, 2006 3:08 AM — 68.108.177.68 — link — abuse?
It is great that the BCS has added a game, and that it will include the top 14 ranked teams to be elgible. Maybe this will help include smaller mid majors in the mix, and create a little parity within college football. But this probably wont happen until Notre Dame is let taken off of the NCAA petistle, of "golden childs" They field good teams sometimes, but include them like everyone else. They shouldn't have even played in the Fiesta last year. Unti their is a playoff system, let the NCAA sit on it. Now Oregon will be in a BCS game along with USC. Oklahoma will be in, Texas will be out. WVU in, Miami in, LSU in, Florida in. Louisville in. FSU out, Tennessee out. Ohio State in. Notre Dame unfortunately with four losses will get the good grace of the media. Not until teams like TCU, Boise St, and UConn have a chance like G.Mason, will college football reach its peak in fan support.
Jonathon Stewart for Heisman in 06.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 12, 2006 11:40 PM — 66.142.91.46 — link — abuse?
Have to agree with KSU fan and Ben to some degree.BCS was designed to improve the system, however it is still flawed. Ben your right the undefeated should face the undefeated.The one loss teams should face one loss teams etc. etc.
The arguement against playoffs has been extention of season and an end to the tradtional bowls- BULL The traditional bowls should be the first round.Say for example the top ten play in the Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Feista, and Orange?
If there is a need to play another round then O.K. play one more-The College Showdown and crown the victor Nat. Champs
As for the extension of the season do away with conference championships. Are they really necessary No. Nobody should have to play the same team twice in the same season. Like in 04 Auburn beat Tennesee twice and still got shafted.Like in 05 Texas played Colorado Twice.Those games generate revenue for host cities, but who wants to see a game like U.T. vs Colorado. 71 points Wow that was a close one. Hookem HornsTaterhater said:
posted on May 13, 2006 11:06 PM — 208.247.148.12 — link — abuse?
Here's an idea... why don't we just have PLAYOFFS?!?!?!?!?! Answer: Sponsors are making more money off the BCS than they would playoffs. Finito. End of discussion. Money talks, rational thinking walks. Having a playoff is obviously the fairest and smartest way to do things... only problem is: No one holding the checkbook cares. So the arguement is futile. The BCS is here to stay and the Big Least will still get their automatic bowl bid even with every decent team but WVA transferred to the ACC. Now we'll add another BCS berth, and another, and another until everybody who wins a conference game gets one. There. Much better. There are no losers with the BCS!!!! No I don't like it either... but nothing's going to change. It'll just get worse (like NASCAR with it's corporate sponsorship overload).And a fan based poll is rediculous..... Every Darth Tater at Clemsux would be voting themselves #1 every single week if they beat Fla. State while forgetting that Duke beat them out by a field goal. The same goes for every school, but especially Clemsux (Motto: Remember we bought a Championship back in the 80's!!!!). 90% of the population would vote their team #1 just for the heck of it. The average fan knows too much about beer drinking and too little about football to cast a fair vote anyway. Dumbest idea on record.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 14, 2006 2:12 PM — 135.214.40.68 — link — abuse?
Point well taken Taterhater.
I understand that the reason the current bowl system won't change to a playoff system(hopefully with bowls)is due to the people in control, but I must disagree that a playoff wouldn't generate more money.
More than that, just because it is unlikely that it will change(at least anytime soon)doesn't mean that fans who truly care about the future of this great game should lay down and let a bunch of money hungry people control the fate of college football. Shouldn't we demand that the best system that is the most fair to ALL be installed. There are plenty of people talking about it already, the more who join in and voice the benefits of a playoff, the more people who get to see the validity of why it WOULD work better.
Back to the original point...More games equal more revenue. If you implement a playoff and still keep the bowl tradition with the other bowl elegible teams you would have a better system that allows more games to be played and therefore would generate more revenue. The problem is...who get's the extra revenue? The people who are currently in control don't want to risk losing that control $$$...and see any change as a bad one...even if the change is better for the game. It's truly a tragedy, and we should demand that what is best for the game regaurdless of whether some consider it futile or not.
posted on May 14, 2006 5:01 PM — 67.191.97.104 — link — abuse?
The necessity of a playoffs is premised on the assumptoin that their must be a uniquely crowned champion each year.
I really question the validity of that assertion, even so far as to say that overtime in college football is unneccisary. What was wrong with the days when co-champions could exist and teams could match up so even they were declaired a tie?
Tomcat said:
posted on May 15, 2006 6:07 AM — 66.142.91.46 — link — abuse?
Hey Ben Nothing wrong with the past. If you like ties watch little league baseball they still have ties. Yes the public wants a champion not co-champions or remember the year that we got shafted. Example 04 Auburn vs 04 USC and 04 Utah vs 04 OU and the winner of those two play in the big one.Everybody happy and everybody makes more money. Guess I'm just dreaming, makes too much sense. Hookem-Horns
I have to agree that a fan poll is kinda sillyMartin said:
posted on May 15, 2006 7:02 PM — 69.252.188.184 — link — abuse?
Tomcat,
They should just make two of the BCS games 1vs4 and 2vs3, every year. Then have the 5th BCS Championship game a week later. The #5 team will whine and whine. They may have a case for 4, but certainly no case for 1. That would keep the intense competition each year.Ben Prather, OT is one of the things that make CF great.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 18, 2006 8:32 PM — 135.214.154.104 — link — abuse?
Ben...Are you saying that you were ok with the days of undefeated teams not being able to play at the end of the year because of their conferences' bowl alliances?
Being Co-champion is kind of like sleeping with your cousin, there's something that just isn't right there.
No overtime??? A Tie??? Why???
Overtime is consistently one of the most exciting scenerios in any sport.
That means you probably don't like the idea of instant replay either? Bad calls can ruin the outcome of the game, why not have a system that can counter that?
Even with the issues I have with the BCS...and it's limitations...I must say that it is a vast improvement over the old system of co-champions, ties, and bad calls that can't be overturned. Sports are all about finding out who the best of the best is/are. If a system doesn't effectively figure that out it should be changed until it does. We all love college football, Pre BCS...but just because something is good doesn't mean it can't be made better, changes in rules are almost always for the better. I choose to be progressive not digressive. Go BCS Playoffs.
posted on May 22, 2006 11:02 AM — 69.73.43.95 — link — abuse?
If one is talking about the lenghts of the games being to long, over time is a large part of the problem.
Tomcat,
That woulda been great, Auburn defeats Utah in overtime for the championship!Martin,
When I first heard of the fifth bowl idea, I thought they were going to select it after the other games where played. I was dissapointed when I found out I was wrong.ksuwild said:
posted on May 29, 2006 6:50 PM — 135.214.154.104 — link — abuse?
Hey Ben,
Games rarely go into overtime(and when they do it's great fun)so I would hardly say they are a "large" part of the problem of games being too long.
A rediculous ammount of commercials is the main reason why games take so long.
By the way, everyone I know who loves college football would like to have an official champion, not a co-champion. That co-champion stuff is for the birds.
Trouty said:
posted on June 7, 2006 4:32 PM — 24.216.227.166 — link — abuse?
hey Tomcat I hope you know that Texas is nothing without young and huff i hope you guys have fun losing at least 2 games this year. USc will be back on top they have to much talent waiting for there chance to shine. this reminds me of 2004 Stafon Johnson might be another bush and did you see the recivers they have coming back. anybody would be lucky to stop them. stafon will have all kinds of room to run. the QB's are solid but untested and the line is in better shape then a lot of people think. Give me byers, baker and kalil and i'll give you the basis for one of the best lines in the pac 10. The offence will be prolific and just as good as last year you just watch there going to pass the ball all over the pac 10 defences.
The defence is going to be better. they have a log jam of talent up front they lost rucker but still they have so much yound talent its just not fair. Kyle More and LO Jack will dominate along with swieger and Ellis. 3 straight #1 recruting classes will do that for you. The linebackers will be much improved Startz will be back and LUA Rivers and Cushing will have another year under there belt. the only question mark is the secondary. they are very yound and lacking talent. however they still might be ok if there freshman pan out the way they should. But still teams should be able to pass on SC this year. that is not going to be enough because they are still to talented else where to lose even one game this year.Buckeye Sparks said:
posted on June 8, 2006 11:11 AM — 66.145.192.250 — link — abuse?
After reading though many of these, I have compiled some of my thoughts, ideas and opinions concerning college football. What do you all think?
All schools fall camps/practices start, approximately 3 weeks before the first game. Similar to the way all college basketball programs start on October 15th.
1st Saturday in December: 1st round of playoff games. Top 8 BCS schools, seeds 1 – 4 host games.
• 8 vs. 1, 7 vs. 2, 6 vs. 3, 5 vs. 42nd Saturday in December: 2nd round of playoffs games. The remaining four BCS schools, higher seeds from winning 1st round brackets host games.
BCS bowl games (Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar), use current format, dates and rotating championship game between these. The three remaining non-championship BCS bowl games will host 1st and 2nd round playoff losers, as consolation and reward for having been one of the top 8 schools during the season.
With the current format, some schools wait 40 plus days to play a New Years Day/January game! This is totally ridiculous! What other sport has such a long layoff between games?
Continue current practice with the remaining bowl games scheduled dates, formats and conference ties.
Concerning the polls:Why do the writers and coaches vote again, after the BCS national championship game? The worst case became reality at the conclusion of the 2003 season.
• Coaches poll – LSU
• Writers poll – USCHow many times do the number 1 and 2 schools in the final college basketball polls, make it through the NCAA tournament to play one another in the national championship game?
Syracuse, the men’s 2002-03 basketball national champions, did not crack the top 25 until February 2003. And the final AP top 25 poll leading into the NCAA tournament, had them ranked 11th.
The 1983 college basketball national championship game, came down to North Carolina State with 10 loses during the regular season and a supposedly unbeatable Houston team. N.C. State won!
Was there ever a question those years, on who were the national champions?
Who and/or what standards constitute a Division 1-A level status?How come there is over 300 division 1-A college basketball schools, but there are only 119 in football?
Living and growing up in the Midwest, I have always loved the Mid American Conference schools. The concern I have with what I consider the “smaller” major conferences, is no different than, that how I’m sure the BCS bowls feel. Will the people come in large numbers, pump money into their economy and how high will the television rating be?
Grouping 119 schools over the course of 12 games, the numbers just doesn’t add up! I personally would like the see a split. Have a Super Division 1 and take the remaining 50 plus schools conferences (C-USA, Mid American, Mountain West, Sun Belt & Western Athletic) to create another “Division 1” level.
At the conclusion of the regular season, this “new division 1 level” would have a similar format as the current BCS:
• The 5 conference champions along with the next 3 best schools (from coaches, media and computer poll)
• Current bowl games to possible use as a rotation for a national championship game. Or even use BCS sites, and these games get played the week before?I would love nothing more than to see each year where a Marshall, Miami of Ohio, Utah, Boise St. or a Fresno St., competing year in and year out, for a realistic chance of a national title.
I like the idea of spreading the wealth. With another level division 1, this can become reality!
Tomcat said:
posted on June 8, 2006 6:52 PM — 69.153.83.199 — link — abuse?
Hey trouty wheres tommy and so cal? You are obviuosly living in some kind of state of delusion.The Horns also have a great Offensive Line a great core of receivers and a stable of running backs.Our defense is also one of the best in the country.You said we are nothing, and mentioned the loss of a couple of players. We lose great players every year, and so does Ohio State and USC.These are consistantly great football programs with execellent recruiting and coaching.If the 05 Trojans were the greatest of all time acording to the bias ABC pac-10 reporters
Then you are in denial.I hope the Razorbacks beat yall. The Nat. Championship game is in Austin Texas between Ohio State and Texas and the winner of that contest will be the Champs.
Hookem-HornsTrouty said:
posted on June 14, 2006 7:35 PM — 24.216.227.166 — link — abuse?
Hey Tomcat the only difference in recruting classes is USC gets better players than Texas at least thats what the experts have been saying for the past three years. We will see if that game in Austin between Ohio State and Texas really is the national championship game yall down south say it will be. But my Hunch is USc will be in its fourth straight title game going for a possible 3 out of 4 Ap national championships. Thats pretty good dont ya think. I hope USC and Texas Meet in Phoenix because then we will finally know who the best college football team of the decade really is.
Fight on baby! We're back only this time ya'll will see even better players taking the field is that scary?
Alex said:
posted on June 16, 2006 4:57 PM — 24.125.2.17 — link — abuse?
I agree completely Trouty. Young had 467 yards in the Rose Bowl. He carried Texas on his shoulders and he is the only reason they won that game. Without him, they are nothing. I am looking forward to another season of USC football
. FIGHT ON!Tomcat said:
posted on June 16, 2006 11:52 PM — 70.244.248.197 — link — abuse?
Hey Guys If you make it past Arkansas and Nebraska, and UCLA then you will face Texas.The Championship Game is Texas vs Ohio State.The best team in the history of college football was the 05 Texas Longhorns.NCAA record 652 points, averaged over 50 points per game.
Hey peckerheads you said without V.Y. we are nothing. What kind of homegrown have yall been smoking?
We loose alot of great players every year and so does USC and Ohio State Etc. Etc, To say that we are nothing without one particular player is total ignorance and denial.The Longhorns are a consistantly good team with the best recruiting and coaching in the nation.
11-2 11-2 10-3 11-1 13-0 Hookem-HornsTomcat said:
posted on July 3, 2006 7:04 PM — 69.153.83.199 — link — abuse?
Hey ksuwild The 1995 Horns beat the 95 Nebraska team.The 05 Horns were even better.
The 2005 Horns were one of the best teams in the history of CFB. The 06 Horns are traveling to Lincoln, Lubbock and I beleive Manhattan this year. Good luck this season Hookem Hornsgig'em67 said:
posted on July 4, 2006 12:56 PM — 216.170.58.10 — link — abuse?
Hey Tomcat, thanks for the gut wrenching laugh. 05' Texas...............best team in college football history. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!
The '95 Cornhuskers would've chewed Texas up and spit them out. Nebraska - THE best offense in history: Averaged 52.4 pts a game, rushed for 399.8 pts a game, 556.3 pts a game. Add to that one of the best defenses ever and Texas would've been lucky to stay within 14 pts of the Cornhuskers.......which by the way was the closest any team was capable of that year and it happened only once. Remember the Fiesta bowl when Nebraska beat #2 Florida, 62-24 in the most dominating fashion? A far cry from having to score late in the game to win. Dream on Tomcat, the only one smoking "homegrown" stuff is you.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 4, 2006 2:46 PM — 69.153.83.199 — link — abuse?
Hey gigem 67 Having fun Yet?
05 is over and gone and the 95 Huskers didnt have to face them.The 96 huskers faced the 96 Horns and got beat in Lincoln ending their 47 game home winning streak.
Good luck with your upcoming season. Glad yall dont have to face The BoBcats.I hope you are looking foward to another road trip to Waco.
The Aggies should improve this year and I like your QB.The Aggies I am afraid will struggle in Austin & Waco.I hope yall beat OU
Hookem-Horns Sicem-Bearsgig'em67 said:
posted on July 5, 2006 9:09 AM — 216.170.58.10 — link — abuse?
No slam here, just a correction. The 96 Horns beat the 96 Cornhuskers in the first Big XII Title game in St. Louis, not in Lincoln. It wasn't until 98 that they beat Nebraska in Lincoln, after Tom Osborne retired.
Oh and I'm sure the Aggies will lose to someone they shouldn't, always seem to......but one never knows.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on July 5, 2006 1:29 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Tomcat...The 05 Horns were far from the best teams in the history of college football. I don't know where you get your football facts from, but they were a weak team the barely defeated USC. Half of the national champs in the past 25 years would have made that bad Texas team look like they were a high school team playing against a college team. Texas did win the national championship, but they will never be considered one of the best teams in the history of college football.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 5, 2006 8:21 PM — 69.153.83.199 — link — abuse?
Sorry Gigem67 My mistake thanks for the correction.I wish yall alot of sucess in the upcoming season. Beat the hell outa OU.I might try to attend the A&M vs Army game in S.A.
Hurricane Fan Do I need to respond?
over 50 points per game average
652 points in a single season-NCAA Record
.713 average all time winning percentage
800 wins
11-2 11-2 10-3 11-1 13-0
Hookem-Horns Sicem-Bears Gigem-Aggies ou-suxksuwild said:
posted on July 12, 2006 10:06 PM — 135.214.154.104 — link — abuse?
This is a great site. Some of the comments...
A weak team that barely defeated USC...from Tampa Hurricane
05 Texas was far from a weak team Tampa Hurricane.
They were so weak that they didn't lose a game last year, that's horrible huh.
If USC wouldn't have lost the National Championship to Texas I have no doubt many would have labled them one of the all time greatest teams...and they would have had a great argument. No team has been more dominant over the last few years, in this day and age winning as many as they did in a row is not an easy task.
Texas beat USC last year as we all know.
Whether 05 Texas would have had enough to beat the 95 Huskers...doubt it...that team was a well oiled machine with a chip on it's shoulder. They ran the ball better than any team I have ever seen and had a vicious defense that laughed at teams who tried to run on them and had the secondary and pass rush to give any passing team fits. aka 62-24 final score against Florida in the 95 National Championship. Florida had no trouble throwing on anyone in 95...that is until they played NU.
How would 05 Texas or 05 USC have matched up to other National Champs...I would say very well.
BUCKEYE MARK said:
posted on July 16, 2006 1:18 AM — 65.24.61.71 — link — abuse?
As a Buckeye "Nut" some of my thoughts
Navy, Army, Temple join the "little East" they need the help
Notre Dame forget your TV deal and join the Big 10 Hopefully that new in 2007 "Big Ten Channel" will help you out
no more Independants
Next BCS I like the 5 game idea kind of those lesser div 1 teams need a chance but the controversy WILL NEVER END. Under new rules I wouldn't have to hear the Oregon "Lame Ducks" complainWe need playoffs give MAC a chance 2005 Buckeyes could of beet Vince Young's Longhorns in a Playoff game I was Hoping that he wouldn't go pro so we could beat him in Austin this year
Buckeyes are FIESTA bound again
We just gotta beat Texas, Michigan, and you wont beleive I take em seriously "Northern Illinios" Hope we put a hurting on them so my "OHIO" MAC teams have a chance at the MAC title
bringbradyback go blue said:
posted on July 22, 2006 4:48 PM — 216.46.213.28 — link — abuse?
I am so glad you added 'nut'
If anyone could beat texas this year its train tressel.......excuse me....coach Tressel.
As a Wolverine fan I have to admit that any coach that can beat THE U of MICH four out of five years is without a doubt the best coach in the world!...
becouse he sure does'nt have much to work with =]Tomcat said:
posted on August 4, 2006 7:12 PM — 69.152.139.90 — link — abuse?
Looking foward to the big one in Austin.Ohio State vs Texas two great programs facing off early in the season.Hey Ohio State fans it has cooled off here to a balmy 108 F in the shade.This is 1800 hrs. ysterday it 110 F
September in Austin is brutal, not just for players but fans as well.
ESPN game day will be here sweating
Hookem-HornsJared Cody Barksdale said:
posted on August 19, 2006 5:16 PM — 69.128.20.16 — link — abuse?
GO HOGS GO!!ULE THIS SEASON,ITS OUR TYME !!!!!!! PIG SOOOOOIEEEE WILL R TYME BABY.
IrishJT said:
posted on August 23, 2006 4:14 PM — 65.83.54.4 — link — abuse?
Buckeye Fans: pay attention. Notre Dame will not join the Big Ten. The implications above that we should do so in order to boost our program is quite possibly the most ridiculous thought ever had. We pocketed $16m after the Fiesta Bowl, not to mention the extension of our NBC, Addidas and Sirius contracts.
As for records, we had as good a regular season record (9-2) as all but 2 or 3 teams in the Big 10.
...and by the way, Notre Dame IS ABSOLUTELY a BCS team. They don't play in a conference, so they are not a "BCS Conference Team"...but a BCS team nonetheless. They helped create the BCS, which is why there is a special ND formula.
T-Mac said:
posted on August 23, 2006 11:57 PM — 66.78.161.35 — link — abuse?
Mayor,post #60.I couldn't agree more.Now I do have Brady Quinn as my Heisman pick and Jeff Samardzija as my Biletnikoff pick,but I agree 100% on that one.Notre Dame sure didn't play like a BCS team in the Fiesta Bowl.Was Ohio State that good or did Notre Dame just not show up???
NDAFArly said:
posted on August 25, 2006 11:50 AM — 74.132.144.25 — link — abuse?
The reason why Notre Dame gets so much "media attention" and ared the "golden childs" of college football is because of blogs like this. Everyone on this blog either loves Notre Dame or hates Notre Dame. All you do is talk about them. You are the reason they are so big. People tune in every week to see Notre Dame win or lose, causing their ratings to be so high.
If you want Notre Dame to disappear then quit talking about them on every single blog, and quit watching their games!!! When I was still in the service, no matter where I went, people always talked to me Monday morning about the ND game. They are the only team in the country to have a true national fan base, and national hatred at the same time.
I think it is funny how every ND team who wins is "over-rated." Look at their schedule rankings every year and tell me if they go 10-2 they don't deserve a BCS game?
Keep talking more stuff about ND, it only makes my school richer and more powerful.
I always get a kick at how on this blog we have an Auburn fan, USC fan, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas State, and so on, and they all talk about Notre Dame?Shouldn't the Michigan and Ohio State fans be talking trash to each other?
I hope Notre Dame wins the National Championship this year, but even if they don't, I get a kick out of how they make everyone else so mad!
JT said:
posted on August 28, 2006 6:58 PM — 71.213.226.54 — link — abuse?
"If there are two undefeated teams, there are no worries." Tell that to Terry Bowden. His dad's Noles beat the previously unbeaten Cornshuckers in the '94 Orange to take the title. Terry's team went unbeaten and was left out to dry due mostly to NCAA probation. Still, the AP could have crowned Auburn the national champions, even though they were ineligible in the Coaches' Poll.
Watch out for TCU this year. Under the new system, we might have been BCS bound last year!
Bill said:
posted on September 7, 2006 3:08 PM — 138.162.140.38 — link — abuse?
WRT Notre Dame, they get the deal because they are an independent and can negotiate their own deal and, more improtantly, they are Notre Dame - period. FSU could have bartered a similar deal in the 90's because they were that good but they had the conference tie-in.
And the idea that a team on probation should be eligible to be a National Champion in that sport is hypocrisy. Go back to the first part o fhte problem set - the school is on probation!! Accept it and move on...
BIG 12 POWERHOUSE said:
posted on October 24, 2006 5:46 PM — 63.123.95.199 — link — abuse?
Who the heck is this "Noter Daime" everyone keeps talking about? Isn't that where that hunch back guy is from?
Predictions (write these down son):
Independence Bowl: Oklahoma State vs Alabama,Holiday Bowl: Oklahoma vs UCLA,
Liberty Bowl: Tulsa vs Arkansas,
Some secondary bowl game predictions:
BCS Championship: Michigan vs USC (Ohio will choke against Michigan),Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs Ohio State,
Rose Bowl: Penn State vs California,
Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs Boise State,
Orange Bowl: Clemson vs West Virginia (sorry WVU fans but going undefeted will not be enough to cary you to a championship game. Your week schedule will hold you back, as it should. Call me when you play some real teams like the SEC and BIG 12 do. This is as good as it gets for you.)
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Diggs the Mountie said:
posted on May 2, 2006 1:49 AM — 68.55.116.210 — link — abuse?WVU = National Champs! 07'!