August 17, 2007
Pre-Season: Ranking the BCS Conferences
Ah, yes. The thread that many a Fanblogs commenter has been waiting on, brought to you by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's own Mr. College Football, Tony Barnhart.
Barnhart makes an attempt to rank the BCS conferences at pre-season:
1. SEC: Two teams in the top three (LSU, Florida) in the coaches poll. Five teams in the Top 15 and six in the top 20. Four coaches (Steve Spurrier, Phillip Fulmer, Nick Saban, Urban Meyer) who have won national championships, more than any other conference. The defending national champions reside in this league. Can there be any argument?2. Big Ten: This was a close call but the Big Ten gets the edge over the Pac-10 in a couple of areas. Yes Ohio State, which played for the national championship last season, has a lot of rebuilding to do. But the Big Ten does have three teams in the preseason Top 10: Michigan (5), Wisconsin (7) and Ohio State (10). Penn State is at 18. The Big Ten has three coaches who have won national championships: Jim Tressel (Ohio State), Lloyd Carr (Michigan), Joe Paterno (Penn State).
3. Pac-10: An argument can be made for the Pac-10 at No. 2. Southern Cal is going to be No. 1 in every major poll and will very like play in the BCS championship game on Jan. 7. California is No. 12, UCLA is No. 17 and there are a host of teams, like Arizona State under new coach Dennis Erickson, who are on the rise.
4. ACC: By any measure, the ACC had a down year in 2006 because Miami and Florida State, who were supposed to be running with the big dogs, were instead sleeping under the porch at 7-6. Both schools have shaken things up and are expected to rebound. Only two teams (No. 9 Virginia Tech, No. 21 Florida State) made the coaches top 25 but Boston College and Georgia Tech got enough votes to be tied for No. 26. There are four new head coaches in this league and the defending champions, Wake Forest, are going to be better than people think.
5. Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M can play with just about anybody. Oklahoma State is not ranked but has a scary offense, as does Texas Tech. All of those teams, however, are in the Big 12 South. The Big 12’s North Division continues to hold this league back. Over the last four seasons the Big 12 North is 21-51 against the South. Seven of the North’s wins have come against Baylor. The fact that Missouri, not Nebraska, is picked to win the North Division this season tells you everything you need to know.
6. Big East: My Big East friends won’t be happy with this because the top of the league is so strong with No. 6 West Virginia, No. 11 Louisville, and No. 16 Rutgers. But the rest of this league is having a hard time getting any love. South Florida and Pittsburgh are headed in the right direction but I just don’t see any upsets where any of the bottom four beats the top three. And what in the world is going on at Syracuse?
Wow. OK... buckle in... I'm expecting about 300 comments on this one....
First, however, here's my two cents.... There's not a lot of room to question that the SEC is the #1 conference going into pre-season. Half of the teams in the conference are ranked in the top twenty -- two teams in the top three. That's quality above and beyond anything else out there. Period. End of discussion.
But, in my opinion, it gets murky for the #2 and #3 slots between the Big 10 and Pac 10. I think the Big 10 gets the nod, with Michigan, Wisconsin, and an interesting Ohio State team looking to be the cream of the conference. The middle rungs of the Big 10 ladder stack up against anybody. I'm not sure you can say the same for the Pac 10, however, which is still a very top heavy conference. And the blame falls on UCLA, who stunk it up in their bowl game and haven't shown that they'll be vastly improved through spring/summer drills. UCLA could have pulled the Pac 10 up, but instead their meddling in the middle, which drops the Pac 10 to #3 in my book.
There's also a lot of room for debate for #4 and #5 between the ACC and the Big 12. Take out the top two teams in each conference (Virginia Tech, FSU and OU, Texas) and you've got two conferences that are competitive internally, but might be underdogs in game against the middle teams in the Big 10 or SEC. I think it's a toss up between the two, but... as a tie breaker... I'll give Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Miami the nod over Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Missouri.
And, I agree with Tony, the Big East is still the number six conference, despite the monster teams (Louisville, West Virginia, and kinda Rutgers... kinda). The reason, again... take out the cream and your left with... not much - teams that are closely matched within the conference, but would be underdogs against the middle of the ACC or Big XII. Don't believe it, Big East-ers? South Florida against... Miami? Georgia Tech? Clemson? Texas A&M? Oklahoma State? USF, as much as I love them, would be the underdogs in every pairing.
So, as much as it pains me, Tony's right on this pre-season ranking of the BCS conference. Right?
To borrow from the Romans.... COMMENTERS... UNLEASH HELL!
Comments:
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on August 17, 2007 10:36 AM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
Wow. I think he nailed it too Kev.
As far as the ACC is concerned, the ACC had a down year last year and because of that deserves to be ranked where they are.
However, I think "long-term" (or 2-4 years down the road) the ACC has the most potential to rival the SEC for the top conference. I expect FSU and UM to both return to form, VT is already there and competitive with the elite. If those 3 are at their peak they can compete with the best of any conference.
The teams to watch out for in the ACC that are on the rise is:
NCST: Tom O'Brian may be the most underrated HC in America. He turned BC into a solid program without having a lot of talent to work with. He'll greatly improve NCST IMO.
WF: Jim Grobe won the Coach Of The Year award and I think he is for real as a coach. Lets face it, WF has a reputation and history of losing and that'll be tough for them to overcome. However, keep in mind teams like UM & FSU came from the same situations.
UNC: Butch Davis will turn UNC into a force. There's good talent in NC and Davis has good ties in FL to build great talent there - just look at last year's recruiting class.
Clemson: They've dedicated more funds to the football program and have made big efforts to improve. Just look at their recruiting, not long ago Clemson wouldn't have been able to PAY a top RB to come out of FL to put on the orange and purple. Now, they have the TALENT to compete, just have some HC questions.
GT: They have in an area with good HS talent and have a very good defense. They should improve as a program without a QB holding them back. I think they'll be better offensively this year.
Maryland: They have a solid coach and could improve over the next few years as they rebuild. They are usually a competitive group.
The only 3 teams I see either not improving or dropping off over the next few years is:
UVA: I think they have too hard a time competing with VT for local talent. Not overly impressed with their coach personally.
BC: I think the loss of Tom O'Brian will hurt them more then people realize. I think he was the glue that held the program together.
Duke: Well, enough said.
The ACC isn't there, YET. But, I think a few years down the road the ACC will be able to compete with anyone top to bottom.
posted on August 17, 2007 11:22 AM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse?Ben Prather said:
I have been waiting for a spot to start my pro-nonBCS bias for the new season.
I wish to point out that non BCS teams are 2-0 in BCS bowls. Let us not forget Utah's 2004 BCS win, and the MWC's average 28 point margin of victory in BCS bowls, higher that any other conference. The point is statistics can be bent to show anything.
The only problem I have with these rankings is I believe the WAC and MWC are just as good as the Big East for the sixth spot. This comment deserves a footnote as it should be interpreted as more of an argument to drop the Big East from the BCS conference lists.
Following last years win over Oklahoma by Boise State in the fiesta bowl: ``I think that the separation of BCS, non-BCS, I think that era is over,'' Meyer said. ``Everybody knows what Oklahoma was getting into - everybody that knows football.''
This is speaking strictly about teams and not strength of conference. The disparity between the top teams in all conferences is greatly diminished from the state it was 20 years ago. This is reflected in the need of these compairisons to resort to compairing the middles of the conferences.
There will be a non BCS team in a BCS Bowl, and that team will win again this year.
HUSKER DENNIS said:
posted on August 17, 2007 11:46 AM — 207.224.109.136 — link — abuse?
The only thing wrong with your ranking systern is its based on you preseason rating which is inconcluses,? if not pure speculation, those who, don't like where they landed, just wait and see: thats all we can do except bitch in the mean time. go big red!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oklahomasteve21 said:
posted on August 17, 2007 11:57 AM — 56.0.143.23 — link — abuse?
as much as it pains me to say this....I think he has it right as well. It's long been the argument that the SEC is the best conference in football and over the past 10yr or so, they've definitely proved it to me. I am still bummed that the Big 8 ever merged with the old SWC-therefore creating the BIGXII. I just feel like the BIGXII is too large and thereby the competition is diminished within the conference. the SEC has great teams all across the board and rivalry games almost each weekend. OU-TX will always be a great game BUT OU-NU isn't what it used to be (like the 70's or 80's) but then again i'm only talking about a few big games for one program. Baylor should never have been allowed into the BIGXII in my opinion and thank God that ISU continues to improve (condolences to Troy Davis for getting screwed on the Heisman--no one has rushed for 3,000 yards 3yrs in a row bro--you were a BAD ASS in my book). I would vote to bring in the CSU Rams instead of Baylor. Basically same team colors, yet it would give the CU Buffs an in-state rivalry conference game much like OU vs. OSU. and if you wanna argue for another Texas school to replace Baylor? why not Houston or UTEP?
no matter how you slice it---it's why they play the game and why we all lose sleep in the fall waiting up for Gameday Final on ESPN. =0
now the SEC....power houses like Florida, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee....all i think of is HUGE STADIUMS and RV's as far as the eye can see. Throw in some Alabama for tradition and ROLL TIDE! Man however you stack this conference they play some hard hittin football "between the hedges", have the worlds largest outdoor "cocktail party" and "volunteer" to be "tiger bait" and do it again the next saturday!!! LOL. sooooo excited the season is sooooo close!!!!
wveersfan said:
posted on August 17, 2007 12:08 PM — 216.230.70.238 — link — abuse?
#4, that was a great post. You are right, as parity has begun to level the landscape and for a group of teams to be predetermined to be included in the BCS is BS.
Although I do believe the Big East is as good as the P10 and better that the WAC or MWC, a team from any of those leagues could lose to a team from any of the other leagues on any given Saturday.
The BCS is to keep the traditional programs at the top and keep the up and comers down. If you want to spend $100 million on your athletic budget and fill your 100k seat stadium, then go right ahead. But don't tell me that because of those factors your 11 are better than my 11 on the field.
I hope the P10 pulls out and creates a cluster-5uck of the whole system. Throw every damn D-1A team who spends the money to compete at that level into a bucket and at the end of the season, rank them and pair them in bowls by those rankings.
The problem is exactly what happened last year. The Troy's of the world are gonna get some wins versus the UM's and Alabamas of the world and that would just KILL the TV ratings. Personally, I couldn't care less about TV. All I know is both of those schools playing have dedicated, loyal fans who deserve to eat the same quality dinner as anyone else.
They are scared that the UL's, WVU's, RU's, BSU's, TCU's and other deserving programs are closing the gap. Hell, we've had our SID (OSU) and OL coach (FSU) stolen in the last 6 months. Now, why do you think that is?
There are good players and coaches EVERYWHERE and this entitlement from the ones with more tradition is BS. The past is the past. Thisngs change and we are here to stay, so make all the league jokes you want but you tell me with a straight face that DUKE, Stanford, UNC, Miss St. and Northwestern deserve to be AUTOMATICALLY considered a BCS team and I'll probably defecate my pants.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's all it is. I guess when you see gangs wearing your gear, you've made it, huh?
cardman steve said:
posted on August 17, 2007 1:00 PM — 74.131.212.190 — link — abuse?
THEIR IS NO NEED TO COMPLAIN. NO 1 HAS PLAYED A GAME. BEING A LOUISVILLE AND BIG EAST FAN TO A DEGREE. I CAN SEE THE BIG EAST BEING 6TH. LESS TEAMS, BUT THE BIG EAST COULD GO HIGHER. THE SEC HAS TO BE TOPS, BECAUSE THE GATORS WON IT ALL. I WILL CONFESS, I LIKE TEAMS FROM EVERY CONF. AND DISLIKE AS WELL. NOT REALLY INTO THE BEST CONF.,MAINLY VARIOUS TEAMS I LIKE. USC,THE HOGS,BAMA,CINCY,BOSIE ST, SOONERS,FRESNO ST,OHIO ST,ETC. DISLIKE THE IRISH,GATORS,TEXAS,KY,VOLS,MICH,IOWA,BYU,VA TECH,ETC. THE REST,OH WELL!!! JUST BEING A COLLAGE FOOTBALL FAN.
c-dogg said:
posted on August 17, 2007 1:01 PM — 76.188.186.207 — link — abuse?
Never was into the conference rankings.....just national titles for my Canes. It didn't matter when Miami was in the Big East and it doesn't matter now that they are in the ACC.
Congrats SEC on your #1 conference ranking. Yipee!!!!
cardman steve said:
posted on August 17, 2007 1:02 PM — 74.131.212.190 — link — abuse?
LOVE TO SEE TCU BEAT TEXAS AND SHAKE THE BCS UP AS WELL. LIKE TO SEE HAWAII DO WELL ALSO.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on August 17, 2007 1:52 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
Ben Prather:
I understand what you're saying. What Boise State did was impressive - or was it?
Lets face it, these non-BCS teams play NO competition within their own conference. Their OOC opponents are weak. Now, I understand they beat Oregon State but that's not exactly a power.
Yes, they played an AWESOME game against Oklahoma and pulled out the victory.
If Oklahoma and Boise State played ten times who would win more? My money is on Oklahoma.
If you put Boise State in a BCS conference, could they get up and compete on a WEEKLY basis?
Probably not.
M GO BLUE said:
posted on August 17, 2007 2:16 PM — 216.46.209.111 — link — abuse?
I see no reason to disagree with the rankings, They look good to me.
My problem with a Non-BCS team getting an invite to a BCS bowl, is that.........they are NOT a BCS team.
Boise State was impressive last season, but they being a Non-BCS team received an invite to a BCS bowl, while the 11-1 Wisconsin Badgers, who were a BCS team, who had to grind week after week against BCS opponents, fought their way to an 11 win season........only to find that a small little rule was going to hold them out of the BCS.......While Boise State Floated through their season, stomping the guts out of their Non-BCS opponents.........It's not that Boise was not good enough........It's that they did'nt earn it the same way Arkansas or Wisconsin had tried to.
M GO BLUE said:
posted on August 17, 2007 2:38 PM — 216.46.209.111 — link — abuse?
Boise State 2007 football schedule -
Weber state
at Washington
Wyoming
Southern miss
New mexico state
Nevada
at Louisiana tech
at Fresno state
San jose state
at Utah state
Idaho
at hawaii .........WoW........if boise state turned into men after the fiesta........where's the meat????????? Looks like a lot of mush to me.gatorhippy said:
posted on August 17, 2007 2:56 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?
Fellas...
The BCS is nothing but an overhyped club of exculsivity based on one thing...
MONEY...
If the BCS "tag" is removed and all conferences are put on equal footing with one another as far as opportunity to play for a National Championship via a playoff within 5 years one of these teams from Non-BCS conferences wins the whole thing guaranteed...
The reason is simple...
Right now the BCS brethren gain the advantage in recruiting due to exposure and the head start on MNC chances...
As the BCS has evened the playing field within the conferences that participate (see the BE)...
Junking that "system" (if it can be called that) and instituting an NCAA sanctioned playoff with representation of each D-1 conference winner and "X" number of at large teams would bring further parity across the board and further regionalize recruiting as kids realized they have as equal a shot at the exposure weinning a NC can bring to not only to the school they attend but to themselves as well marketing them to the next level...
The BCS "label" at its current point is nothing but a marketing label in order to keep a separation in parity so the money can be kept in the pockets of those participating...
War Eagle Atlanta said:
posted on August 17, 2007 3:21 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
EER10: Even if South Florida doesn't upset Auburn, you get your shot next year. Will you still have the dynamic duo? Any early predictions?
Since you play dah Bulls, too, we'll have them in common as an opponent. Let's see who does better against them. That may be the only yardstick we get this year.
War Eagle Atlanta said:
posted on August 17, 2007 3:29 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
Non-BCS conference schools may very well play in BCS bowl games and win. I don't see it as that big a deal since they skate through inferior competition in the regular season and are left to really get up for only one game. Granted, it's the biggest game in the history of the program, but it's only one game.
Everybody loves a Cinderella. That's why we don't want to totally eliminate them from the equation. I was rooting for Boise to knock off Oklahoma last year. I just never thought they'd do it. And to be honest, my reason for rooting for them was more or less to cut the Sooners down to size rather than having great empathy for the Broncos. Most you you were probably the same way.
Zac said:
posted on August 17, 2007 4:08 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Kev: "6. Big East: My Big East friends won’t be happy with this…" "…I agree with Tony, the Big East is still the number six conference…" I must say; if indeed you and Tony consider me a friend, I'd have to consider myself fortunate to claim such friendship. I have no issue with either Tony's take or yours.
When I started this post, there were only 6 comments, and all in their own way were good. Now look at it; pheeeew!!! I have some catching up to do.
I have to agree; this prediction or poll is like any other; it doesn't matter where you start; it matters where you end up. I also agree, year after year, with few exceptions in between, the SEC is likely the strongest conference. However, I see no shame in being ranked 6th, not when you're comparing grades (were this done), such as 98.9 as a high and 93.5 as a low. Clearly, there is not a great deal of difference from top to bottom, let alone #2 - #6.
I agree; the ACC had a down year last year, but will come back strong this year. Of the 12 teams in the ACC many are solid, and with some of the coaching changes, many will be great in time. I've said as much in previous threads; expect Miami to improve; don't be surprised to see FL St crack the Top 10. As for Wake, maybe they won't win the ACC this year, but they will at the very least be every bit as good as last year.
I see where Ben is coming from, and I agree; there are solid teams among the mid-majors: Boise St, BYU, S MS, TCU, and Utah, to name a few. What with potential rising stars such as C Fl or Troy St, that would seemingly bolster the argument. However, I don't see these conferences being as well rounded as the top 6. There-in lays the difference. Given all of the mid-major conferences there are, likely only 1 will make a BCS bowl. BTW, Semi-Nat, I disagree with your assessment of Boise St. They played a competitive schedule last year, not to mention the game against a great OK squad, and went undefeated. I do agree; they are the exception, not the rule, and likely wouldn't go undefeated in any of the 6 major conferences. But, man, they'd turn some heads.
As for the Pac-10 vs. the Big 10, let's give the Pac-10 their due. USC/Mi, Cal/OSU, OR St/WI, UCLA/PA St: Grade them out any way you want, and you're pretty darn close. Then, there's the rest: WA St/Purdue, OR/IA, AS St/MN, AS/IN; we're starting to get into some miss-matches here. Finally there are WA & Stanford to pair up anyway you want against MI St, IL, & NW. They may be 50% against MI St, but they beat IL & NW almost every time out. My opinion: The Big 10 is a bit top heavy & over-rated. BTW, T-Horse, if you included Louisville, Rutgers, & S FL, I would agree with you. Each of these would have gone undefeated in the MAC last year. Heck, even Cincy beat one of the better MAC teams.
As for my beloved Big East, Mike Tranghese is going to have to find a way to pick up at least a couple more quality teams for the football side of the house, or the nay-sayers just might get their way with the Big East loosing their BCS status. Then again, if all he really cares about is basketball, that leaves the door open for the ACC, Big 10, & SEC to do a little more expanding. What if the Big 10 took Pitt, Syracuse, & WVU; the ACC took Rutgers & UConn, and the SEC took Louisville & S FL? (Sadly, Cincy would be left out in the cold, more's the pity.) The Big East still has their impressive BB schools, while the ACC, Big-10, & SEC have garnered a few more teams in decent markets. It could happen. For the time being, however, let's see where we wind up come Jan. 7th.
Oh, almost forgot. G-H, you got it right, as usual. The BCS need only drop the "C", and they'll have finally revealed their true inner self.
OU Fan said:
posted on August 17, 2007 6:00 PM — 84.146.11.254 — link — abuse?
I'm just curious how the Pac-10 is ranked ahead of the Big 12. I have much respect for the Pac-10 and I have a friend from the L.A. area whom is a die hard USC fan, but I just don't see how the Pac-10 is ahead of the Big 12. Yes, USC is the preseason number 1 team. Cal is impressive and is ranked at #12, but UCLA at #17 to me is no reason to give the Pac-10 the edge over the Big 12. Oregon and Washington and good, but any team from the Big 12 could hang with them bedsides Baylor. As to big 12, Oklahoma is number 8. The team who I have much hate for (Texas) is number 4. Texas A&M is at number 19 and Nebraska is at number 25. Teams not ranked which I think should be are Missouri, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. In my opinion, I just don't see how people over look the Big 12, because the Big 12 is absolutely loaded with talent from top to bottom. I guess the only way we'll see how tough the Big 12 really is compared to other conferences will be early with OU-Miami, KSU-Auburn, OSU-Georgia, Colorado-FSU, ATM-Miami, and Nebraska-USC(which I think the Huskers will pull off the upset by the way.) Anyone who doesn't see Nebraska pulling this one off is crazy. I also believe that the Big 12 has a slight advantage over the ACC. Now, its been a long day and I am not in the mood to type in numbered statistics to back up my argument, but if anyone disagrees and has the time to type in numbered stats to make me look stupid, feel free. Everyone enjoy the weekend and the season is only 2 weeks away. BOOMER SOONER!!
Tomcat said:
posted on August 17, 2007 10:47 PM — 207.193.30.194 — link — abuse?
Wow #20 gatorhippy hit it on the head-Thanks Dude my sentiments exacly.Go back and read my posts on the playoff thread.
Zac look the guy that wrote the article works for the Atlanta paper-Hello of course hes going to rank the ACC high even if their so-called perenial powers have 5 or 6 losses.
OU fan your right, this year Nebraska a 5 loss B-12 team plays the ACC Wake Forest okay.
Neb lost to USC, Texas, OU, Auburn and OK st. all of these teams were top 25 except OK st and OK st probably should have been.
#22 WAREAGLEATL I was picking Bois St to win, however if Bois St was in the B-12 they would have never had a shot and would have several loses simular to T Tech and OK st.
Zac we know you love the Big-E look at the Big-E vs B-12 last year Lou vs K-St---RU vs K St
Big-E wins against one team from the middle of the North, that lost to Baylor.
If Baylor was in the WAC,Sunbelt or C-USA they probably wouldnt be 4-8.The 12 south in my opinion is alot tougher league than B-E or ACC or Pac-10.Take any team from any of those leagues and face UT, OU, Tex A&M,OK st and TTech and see if they go with 1 or 2 losses, I dont think so.
Sicem Bears beat TCURegan said:
posted on August 18, 2007 12:58 AM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
The list is pretty much accurate.
The ACC deserves to be where it is, although I think top-to-bottom they are better than the Pac-10 save for the #1 spot.
The ACC's dismal season last year gives the Pac-10 the nod, though...although the ACC will improve more this season.
The SEC can be nowhere but #1 with all the heavy caliber teams, although I agree with SEMINOLE_NATION, the ACC will eventually be head-to head with them as soon as regional identities are really seen along the East Coast.
The Big Ten, Big 12, and Big East are all in the same boat - each is a Chimera with a bunch of weaker teams.
Trust me, I'd love to rip this list apart, but it's pretty much spot-on.
As far as the BCS goes, I'm on record and won't change my mind - it's the best we are going to have other than a "Plus-One".
And it's a heck of a lot better than a playoff.
Destroying the unique and critically important Regular Season and changing the very fabric of what College Football is, all just to keep one team's fans from whining whenever two undefeated teams don't end up playing for the National Championship?
Feel free...College Football is the best sport, and in my mind, the only real SPORT. We change it at our own peril.
cardman steve said:
posted on August 18, 2007 6:51 AM — 74.131.212.190 — link — abuse?
THE BCS DOES SUCK TO A DEGREE. THINK! BACK IN THE 80,S WHEN MIAMI BECAME HUGE. IF THE BCS WAS AROUND, MIAMI WOULD HAVED BEEN HOSED. 1990, LOUISVILLE WOULD HAVED NEVER PLAYED BAMA IN THE FESTIA BOWL. BYU WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN NAT,L CHAMPS AS WELL. MAKE EVERYONE BCS, THAT,S THE ONLY WAY.
Tomcat said:
posted on August 18, 2007 7:05 AM — 207.193.30.194 — link — abuse?
OU Fan #25 ya your right, it only stands to reason that the winninest programs over the last 6 years in CFB are UT, USC and OU. What two from the B-12 south ya the ACC must be better right?
Or the PAC-10 with 1 consistant top program.
Or I guess the big-10 As a UT fan we are 3-1 against the B-10 so I guess their better-ya right whatever
Hookem-HornsMike's Dogs said:
posted on August 18, 2007 7:57 AM — 76.24.85.72 — link — abuse?
The ACC could be in for another down year. It's still a conference in transition with some good teams but no great teams.
Someone mentioned Tom O'Brien. He recruits well and prepares his teams well. But when it comes to game days, he's got to be one worst division 1 coaches around. NC State will be happy when he turns them into a consistent 9 game winner and then fire him after he chokes away some close games by playing "not to lose".
As for the Big East, I don't understand the bad ranking here. It's not as if those top three teams are average top 25 teams and WV and Louisville both should be that good again.
VaNilla Garilla said:
posted on August 18, 2007 11:52 AM — 68.1.123.248 — link — abuse?
i agree with the list as well. the ACC has the potential but hasnt reached it yet. as far as the big east goes i dont understand why they feel so slighted year after year. louisville and wv are quality schools but thats where it ends. i doubt rutgers can repeat the cinderella year they had last year usf wouldnt win 5 games in another conference. now big east fans before you pile on me im not saying that you suck im just saying i agree with the spot on this list. who knows maybe a couple of years from now the BE is in the top three just not yet.
Zac said:
posted on August 18, 2007 12:42 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
TC (Post 31), I was a little taken a-back by your post, as I wasn't certain where you were coming from; especially given I didn't talk up the B.E., and was accepting of its ranking. So, I re-read my post and realized I had things to say about all the other conferences, but said nothing of the B-12. My apologies for the injustice. Here's my take for you to mull over as you see fit.
1. SEC
2. Pac-10
3. Big 12 (a close 3rd)
4. ACC tied
5. Big 10
6. Big East (a close 6th)By the way, you forgot KS's win over S FL (which I'd just as soon forget, for other reasons). But you're right; 3 games played practically against the same team is no measure between conferences. The B.E. & B-12 need to get together more often. I still stand on the B.E. needing to split into 2 sub-conferences completely independent of the other: All Sports & BB. That's the only way I can see the football side being able to pick up at least 2 more teams; thereby being more easily comparable with the rest.
HUSKER DENNIS said:
posted on August 18, 2007 2:05 PM — 207.224.109.136 — link — abuse?
The BCS was set up to try to arrange a 1 vrs 2 play off in other words get the big 10 P10 to poney up their 1 or 2 rated team for a mif. champshipship gane instead of beening tied to the rose bowl. asuming that the bcs would always have the #1&2 teams GO BIG RED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cardman steve said:
posted on August 18, 2007 3:40 PM — 74.131.212.190 — link — abuse?
EER10,I have to agree with you. If S. FLA BULLS beat Auburn Tigers look out. They have CARDS at home and W VA as well. LOUISVILLE plays lousy at S. FLA and beat W VA at W VA. You are not smoking crack,this could happen. THE BULLS could be BCS bound. I hope LOUISVILLE gets over the hump at S. FLA and anyone thinking they can beat AUBURN might be on crack and TV90 as well. This team is a breath away from being a powerhouse.
NOLEFAN said:
posted on August 18, 2007 8:13 PM — 24.211.107.75 — link — abuse?
I am a die hard seminole fan, the acc is on the move to becoming a top dog conference , but it doesnt matter the SEC is the best conference in the country, you could take the last place team out the SEC and go up against just about any other team in the nation and the will give them a run for their money, id put up 5 to 1 that Kentucky could put a whoopin on Texas.......GO NOLES!!!!!
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on August 19, 2007 12:28 AM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Nolefan,
Conferences have up years and down years. To say that one one conference is always the best every year is silly. Looking at the number of players playing in the NFL from a particular year is a good measure.
The SEC, in my opinion, was the best conference in 2006, but not in 2005. Even with that being said; that conference had the following powers,3-9 Miss. State with wins over UAB,Jack. St and and Alabama
4-8 Ole Miss with wins over Miss. St., Memphis, Vanderbilt and Northwestern St.
6-7 Alabama with quality wins over Hawaii, Vandy, Lousiana Monroe, Duke, Ole Miss and Fla. International
4-8 Vandy with wins over Tenn. St, Temple, Duke and a good win over Georgia
i think you could make a better argument that the SEC had the best conference when it came to the top 3 or 4 in each division.
Cock'n'Fire South Carolina 101 said:
posted on August 19, 2007 12:35 AM — 96.10.98.113 — link — abuse?
i agree with you post 42
the acc is in a bump on the road but later on they will be worthy of a higher spot...and as a die hard gamecock fan i say it is great to be in the #1 conference and getting to watch the best games...however until i see ohio state play the gamecocks again and not get the crap beaten out of them i have to say the big ten is overrated...michigan and penn state seem good but other than that i cant say much good...also i agree kentucky probably could take on texas because when i watched kentucky play my gamecocks i was suprised how close it was because i think theyve only beaten us like twice since we joined the sec and that was during 1-10 and 0-11 seasons...however they have the best quarterback in the sec who will probly lead them a great bit and i laughed so hard when they beat georgia last yeer because i despise them...i also despise clemson and their bowl game HA that was pretty funny too and jad dean just tore himself apart in that bowl...however if clemson gets a good quarterback and kicker which i think was their weakness last year they will maybe make the acc look alot better...until the battle of the palmetto state rivalry where they get beaten by my gamecocks
GO COCKS!
HUSKER DENNIS said:
posted on August 19, 2007 12:44 AM — 207.224.109.136 — link — abuse?
#42, don't bet the trailor house on that ridicoulas bet. KENTUCKY WASEN'T TO BAD last year. but even at their best or better then their best they would take a a-- whippen. hooken horns. those big boys from Texsas would eat their lunch and pop their bag.
james higgs said:
posted on August 19, 2007 1:21 AM — 12.213.80.39 — link — abuse?
people will hate me,but I hope we never see a playoff in college football. why should only one team have a successful season. look at Rutgers. they are everybody's team now, but they've been dog food for years and years, they ended there season by winning the texas bowl and by doing so gained a little rep for it. this is how the lower cast in college football start to build or rebuild their programs. I hate profootball thier is know passion for the game. there is only a paycheck and I don't care about how much someone makes. Boise state could not go through a Pac-10 schedule and go undefeated. but they would be competive with a lot of teams in that conference,and that started years ago when boise made a commitment to get better and now its starting to payoff. I hope we see a two level BCS system were lower cast teams get a chance to be showcased and not a plus one system because that just devalues the bowl games, and how would a team like Louiville know that they had gained the respect of the higher cast programs. it's simple by being asked to join a BCS conference.
hrposon said:
posted on August 19, 2007 11:03 AM — 98.197.149.114 — link — abuse?
@47 James Higgs - The national champion should be determined by winning football games. Right now Boise State and Rutgers don't have the depth at all positions to compete with the big boys in a playoff system, and will have to improve. A weaker team can win one game, but a playoff usually produces the best team that can handle all styles of play. This isn't the about Pop Warner football and your Dad isn't the coach.
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on August 19, 2007 2:17 PM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Cock n Misfire,
Before you and your friends from Williams Brice Industrial Complex run your mouth about Georgia and Clemson, my facorite two, consider the following:
You are a collective 1-9 against those two schools in the last FIVE years. your only win came this past year via a missed FG on the last play of the game.
AND THE WIN AGAINST OHIO STATE CAME ON THE LAST PLAY OF THE GAME USING A PLAYER THAT HAD FAILED OUT OF SCHOOL! THE FG KICKER WAS INELGIBLE! HOLTZ AND THE REST OF THE CROOKS LET HIM PLAY ANYWAY! BUT YOU WILL NOT HAVE THAT PROBLEM ANYMORE BECAUSE SUPER STEVE HAS LOWERED THE REQUIREMENTS TO IDIOT STATUS IN ORDER TO GET IN INTO SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA.
You enjoy the status of the SEC because of team like Geogia, LSU, Auburn, etc....
Zac said:
posted on August 19, 2007 5:52 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Soonerfanatic28 (Post 51), as I've already stated, I don't have a real issue with the B.E. being ranked where they are in this thread. Not to mention, if you check Post 38, I go so far as to disagree as to where Barnhart ranks the Big-12. So for the sake of argument, what's your basis for the BE being ranked 6th, and what do you think they need to do to get better?
Regan said:
posted on August 19, 2007 8:28 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
hrposon (#49):
Indeed, the national champion should be determined by winning football games - and it is.
The points james higgs were trying to make are quite valid:
1) In a playoff, there is only one team that wins their last game. In a Bowl system, half the teams win. In a true playoff season, there is absolutely no chance a Rutgers or Boise State could win the national championship. (case in point - when has a small team won the NC in basketball lately?) As it is now, though, they could cap off an awesome season with a big-time win.
2) College Basketball is all about a team getting hot at the right time, whereas in College Football, the Regular Season is king. This is the way it is and has always been - and is why CF is special.
3) Changing the very soul of what makes CF special so no one gets to whine about their team getting screwed? No thanks...I just won't whine.
hrposon said:
posted on August 19, 2007 11:50 PM — 98.197.149.114 — link — abuse?
@53 Regan - Not true. The college football national champion is still NOT decided on the field, but in the polls. In 2003 LSU beat Oklahoma in the BCS Championship game. USC beat a (9-2) Michigan team in a prearranged Rose Bowl game that excluded the rest the college football, and the AP declared USC the National Champion. The next thing you know is that USC is going for a "Three Pete". The AP is just a bunch of drunken sports writers and TV types that don't want the BCS to steal their thunder.
gatorhippy said:
posted on August 20, 2007 6:57 AM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Regan (#53):
In reference to your point #1...
CFB isn't YMCA Sports where everyone one wins and gets a medal and pizza party at the end of the season...
It's one of the highest competitive levels of football and should be treated accordingly...
With a true system without bias that can actually be measured by weekly performance on the field in terms of wins and losses...
The fallacy in crowning the MNC is in direct opposition to the way ALL conferences crown their champs...
If the MNC is to be crowned by opinion and computer ranking then why not crown the conference champions in the same manner...
Again, the BCS is poop on a spoon...
Open up...
Cock'n'Fire South Carolina 101 said:
posted on August 20, 2007 3:04 PM — 96.10.98.113 — link — abuse?
hey mr CU (the name of a cereal goes here) tiger,
dood if u havent noticed all those losses to georgia youre talking about was by 6 points or less except for last year when we had that bullshit shutout game where we get a touch down and they they said "nope just a millimeter short" or "he fumbled forward in the end zone even though he was already down so ill give them the ball" or even "hmm i see a clean block right there so there has gotta be a way to call holding for a safety oh ill do it anyway" and then we go into the clemson games whew lets see 2006 the clemson kicker sucked so my main man jasper brinkly went in and sacked proctor for 10 yards forcing a fg that was outta his range even though it was 31 yarder "hehe" and we woulda won in overtime anyway...and if u wanna talk about ur kicker messing up in that game and that being the decider lets go back to nathan peppers fumble recover that he brought back to the 1 yard line and the 360 pound nathan pepper exausted from running 60 yards down field trips and fumbles into the end zone instead of giving us 6 and the PAT its a touchback and clemsons ball...hmm 2005 lets see close game i couldnt say anything bad about either team they were both just as good but somebody had to win...2004 i loved watching that fight it was funny so i dont care about the score that game was so interesting and now we see 2003 dont remember that game very well and neither i do 2002 but 2001 was a big fat L for clemson and i was sitting there in the upper west stands in the "WONDERFUL" williams brice stadium...so to what i recall a little was our ass getting kicked but the rest was just a fluke...anything else u want to descuss please dont hesitate to speak
ksuwild said:
posted on August 20, 2007 7:39 PM — 170.35.224.64 — link — abuse?
(Post 32,47,53) from Regan & james higgs,
Both of you........give me a break.
Seriously.
Regan, when are you going to get it through your head that the reason college football should implement a playoff is NOT to keep people from whining. That would be an after affect, but it certainly wouldn't be the reason to implement a playoff.
1. Playoffs are FAIR to EVERY TEAM.......regardless of what conference they are a part of. It's very simple, make the top 4 or top 8 and you're in, if you don't you're not.
2. Playoffs EFFECTIVELY decide a TRUE champion. Not a paper champion. Something the current system has failed to do almost EVERY year.
3. Playoff are a PROVEN way of deciding a champion. It's not like someone is suggesting some random new way of deciding a champion. Playoffs work on every level of every sport they have ever been tried in. Think not? Give me one example of a playoff that hasn't worked. Just one. Please, I'm begging you.
4. Who says Playoffs would take anything away from a regular season? You??? Let me ask you a question. If there was a 4 team plus one playoff, or even an 8 team playoff, how many losses do you think a team could have and still make it? I'll help you out. If you go through and look at almost every year and you are honest with yourself, the answer is......one loss in a 4 team playoff and maybe two losses for an 8 team playoff in some years. If it was a two loss team, it would be a damn good one.
5. Who says the only way to have a successful season in a playoff is to win it? You're telling me that if a team like Boise St. or Rutgers(no disrespect intended)made it all the way to the National Championship and lost that they wouldn't have had a successful season? Smoke crack much? Making a playoff would be a success in most peoples eyes. Lose or not they put themselves in a position to do something special.
6. How many bowls are there now? How many bowls do they add EVERY year? Taking 4 or 8 teams out of that equasion wouldn't ruin the fabric & soul of what college football is(only in your mind Regan)......that is a JOKE and a scare tactic from the traditional College Football fans who are scared of ANY change, even changes that are for the better of the sport. The bowl system would be intact, and just fine WITH A PLAYOFF.
In case you didn't know James, Boise St. WHOOPED the Oregon St. team that beat a very good USC team(that won the PAC 10)last season as well as beat a very good OU team(that won the Big XII). Are you still positive they couldn't make it through the Pac 10? No disrespect to the Pac 10 but I'm not.
Regan, College Basketball has a 64 team tournament. College Football would have 4, and maybe 8 in the future. Apples and Oranges budddy.
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on August 20, 2007 7:42 PM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Cock n Misfire...
HOW ABOUT 2-8 IN THE LAST 10 YEARS???? EXPLIAN THAT AWAY. And the two wins were by five and three points.
How about 63-17 and 29-7... how about your 21 game losing streak?
Enjoy August.......South Carolina wins more national championships in the month on August than any other program in the nation.
Regan said:
posted on August 20, 2007 7:44 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
hrposon (#54):
Terminology - you said the "national champion should be determined by winning football games", and it is.
A team must win all of it's regular season games to be guaranteed a spot in the title game.*****
A team can't (and shouldn't) find itself in a title game simply by winning 3 straight games at the end of a season.
*****I actually was a huge fan of the BCS until 2004, when it was revealed as truly flawed when an undefeated SEC champ was left out of the title game.
Now, I am in favor of modifying the BCS in two ways:
1) A "Plus-One" contingent on basis of need. If 2x BCS schools are undefeated at the end of the season, there is no need. Otherwise, there is.
2) Teams must win their conference to play in the National Championship.
Simple, manageable, to the point, and leaves the spirit of CF (the strength of the regular season) intact.
As far as your characterization of the AP, though, we are in complete agreement...
Regan said:
posted on August 20, 2007 7:57 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
gatorhippy (#55):
I agree with the basic premises that you make about CF and opinion, etc.
However, "CF Playoff" people consistently fail to realize what College Football is all about. IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT BEING NUMBER ONE. Never has. That is why it is different from every other sport in America, and why it is special enough to make grown men act like children en masse here on Fanblogs :-)
The Regular Season MATTERS.
As far as it being one of the highest competitive levels of football, that's fine. That doesn't mean that the sport as we know it needs to be scrapped because it needs to fit into this neat little box with Wild-Cards and Champions with Seven-Loss Records.
Subjectivity is the only way to play the game without every team having a 118-game season, no matter what.
I agree with you that the BCS is flawed; all I'm against is the notion of a Playoff. A Playoff would wreck the importance of the Regular Season and there is absolutely no way around this fact.
Plus-One, contingent on basis of need. It's the only way everyone gets something they want, both those who want consensus, and those who fight uphill battles trying to keep what they love :-)
ksuwild said:
posted on August 20, 2007 9:52 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
Regan, post 59 is waiting for you. I addressed every one of your points, even the ones you made after 59.
I have a couple other things to add to 59 before you get started.
So in your "plus one based on contingent only" scenario you're saying the regular season is NOT hurt in the in years where it would be needed? So why would a plus one playoff hurt the regular season in any scenario? It either works or it doesn't. It's fair or it isn't. It's WAY to inconsistent to start a season and say, we may have a playoff, or we may not........we'll decide whether we will or won't at the very end. Ohh, sorry Boise St., we know you were undefeated but you're not in a "BCS" conference so you get screwed. We're just going to play the 2 BCS undefeated teams and leave you out of a playoff? Do you really think that is fair????? Even if you take the "BCS" stipulation out of the equasion.........you're telling me a one loss team like FLORIDA from last year wasn't playoff worthy? Come on dude. Are you serious? Tell me you still think Ohio St. was a better team than Florida because they made it through the regular season undefeated so everyone can start laughing hysterically. Not every conference is created equal, and that fluctuates from year to year. Your "playoff on a contingent only" idea might have some merit if every conference had the exact same difficulty EVERY YEAR, but you and I both know they don't. Part of being fair is being consistent, and I'm sorry but your "contigent only" system is way to wishy washy to be qualified as consistent.
RESPONSE?
soonerfanatic28 said:
posted on August 20, 2007 11:15 PM — 64.136.49.227 — link — abuse?
Zac #52 I think WVU could improve their D,because frankly their holding the big east together.
Yes louisville and rutgers are good but I still think the Big-East can improve.
BTW PAC-10 #2...? (USC is the Pac-10)Cock'n'Fire South Carolina 101 said:
posted on August 20, 2007 11:42 PM — 96.10.98.113 — link — abuse?
senor total tiger
yeh those 1-10 and 0-11 seasons sucked...and now clemsons gonna be looking at that after getting a 1-10 season this yeer and then firing tommy bowden which makes them do worse to 0-11 oh wait add an extra loss to those because we play 1 more game now...but if were naming bad times in college football lets go back to the start...hmm 1892 was the very first time we played lets see who won hmmmm gee i think i see wait is that a big fat L for clemson? yes i beleive it is and lets skip ahead to 1902 hmm i beleive once again we are gettin somethin now 1912 yes another win i beleive and then we get to 1920-21 back to back shut outs and then shut out 3 times in a row 1924-26 wow this is looking good and then 1931-33 once again south carolina shuts out clemson tres times...1941 '46-47 '49 all wins and then we get to 1951-54 4 wins in a row whew 1958 '61 '64-54 and then we come up to another 3 game wins in a row in 1968-70 then '73 i see another win and WOW 1975 look at that 56-20 wow clemson must of sucked that yeer now 1979 '84 '87 '92 '94 '96 '01 and then we come to last yeer which was great...all great wins you see i can look back to good times too...and just think the rivalry started with a carolina win which 1896-97 was the only yeer we had a winning record against clemson it was still probly great for all the NCAA forefathers...now lets get back to within the last year which actually matters and tells us something instead of talking about history...its probly a good thing yall lost proctor because he sucked but now yall still dont have a qb with experience...james davis is a good athlete but if the running game is stopped then theres not much left except some little freshman throwing chip shots for ints
dang i got so caught up on what i was talking about i forgot the point i was making in this oh welljames higgs said:
posted on August 20, 2007 11:54 PM — 12.213.80.59 — link — abuse?
Guys, if you want a playoff go watch your favorite pro. team. I like the bowl games,I like the traditions,I don't give a damn about a national championship. I care about one game match-ups with teams that have weeks to prepare for just one game. the only thing I think that the BCS gets wrong is that it doesn't include some of the weaker conferences in a tier two system so more schools can share in a primetime spotlights. but you won't agree with me. so just turn your tv on and let espn tell you what you like.
CUTotalToger said:
posted on August 21, 2007 12:49 AM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Regan,
the only way to truly have a national champion in footbal is a play-off allowing each conference, power conferences, to send their conference champs. Everything else is subjective opinion based off speculation.
ksuwild said:
posted on August 21, 2007 4:49 PM — 170.35.224.64 — link — abuse?
James Higgs(66),
Who doesn't like Bowl games and the traditions that go along with them? Why would you have to throw that out the window if you implemented a playoff in College Football? As I said in post 59, there are already a ton of bowl games and they add bowl games EVERY YEAR. Taking 4 or 8 teams from that equasion wouldn't ruin anything. Bowl games would still go on......tradition filled and all and the regular season would certainly still carry it's importance as well. We're not talking about a 64 team ALL inclusive playoff like NCAA basketball has so don't sensationalize it's effects. In 2004 if they would have had a plus one playoff and any team had lost even ONE game they wouldn't have made it......meaning the regular season would still be VERY important. No one who wants a playoff(that I know)wants to get rid of the bowls and traditions that make college football so great. All a playoff would do is change the national title hunt from a bunch of exhibitions(that ARE fun to watch)to a TRUE race(that would REALLY be fun to watch)that would crown a REAL champion. Not a popularity contest paper champion.
You could care less about the National Championship huh? Is that not a "one game match-up with teams that have weeks to prepare for just one game" which you said you care so much about? Your points contradict eachother bro. If you like exhibitions go watch WWE pro wrestling or start pencil fighting with your buddies or something. The rest of us will pursue what is best for the game we love.
"so just turn your tv on and let espn tell you what you like"
You're soooo right man, that's where all of us "CF playoff people" go to be told what we like. You're like a modern day prophet aren't you? LOL
Zac said:
posted on August 21, 2007 6:22 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Soonerfanatic28, I was actually referring to the conference as a whole. You are right, however; WVU needs to improve its "D". Last year, for the most part, their rushing "D" was decent. However, that waned over the last 3-4 games, and their secondary was completely lost. Eric Wicks (plays SS, the only decent one in the secondary) admitted there wasn't one game throughout the entire season that the secondary looked good. They did play a couple of decent halves against some good QB's, but not once did they play an entire game. As good as the rushing "D" began, there was never really a decent pass rush. I could go on forever; we can only hope they've made the necessary adjustments, which is another reason why I'm thinking they'll finish out ranked 10th.
Getting back to the conference, I was curious as to how you thought they might bring in a couple of more teams, and who you thought might be a good fit.
james higgs said:
posted on August 21, 2007 8:14 PM — 12.213.80.36 — link — abuse?
ksuwild , what do you suggest ? you say i'm a prophet pal you don't take in the big picture at all do you. you don't seem to realize one of the biggest reason that their will never be a playoff is the cost it would have to the fans. and I mean real cost not the allowance your daddy gives you once a week. I'm talking about traveling to different games in back to back weeks that would crush the fanbase. but you don't care do you. you don't get it and never will. if you switch to a playoff lower tier teams will never get a chance and have know doubt they will not. the bigger conference's would never allow it to happen. hell they barely let them play in the BCS bowl games. and as far as a national champion thier has never been a NCAA sanctioned champion so why worry about it. Do you not get that it all is an exhibiton, and you should just sit back and enjoy the experience. instead of trying to change it to what you want it to be. A playoff of any kind devalues the regular season and the bowls and destroy the one thing all collage football fans share a passion for their team.
Zac said:
posted on August 21, 2007 9:24 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Jim Higgs: You make some good points, but you also make some bad assumptions. I say these are assumptions as there's no way to really know the outcome, since a play-off system hasn't been used in Div-1 college football. You can base your assumptions upon empirical data; you can base it upon logical reasoning, but you can't sit there and say, "This IS how it WILL be."
One point with which I vehemently disagree is your assumption the bowl system will be devalued. It won't happen if the bowl system is used properly. As it is, only 5 or 6 bowls are set aside for the BCS; 1 or 2 more and you've covered the qtr-finals, semi-finals, and finals. As it was, there were 32 bowls last year. That's enough to accommodate 64 teams. If as many as 10 teams were play-off bound, even if every play-off game took up a bowl, that's only 9 bowls taken up, leaving 23 bowls to accommodate 46 teams. At least with this system, there's little chance you'll have match-ups between teams with 6-6 records; not to mention, since they know they're not ranked 1 & 2 respectively, they would know they're not playing for the NC. They'd obviously be playing for what ever it is that 7-5 & 8-4 teams have been playing for since the bowl system began: a chance at one more win.
As for "crushing" the fan base, I doubt it would have that much impact. College football fans are everywhere. True: Not all of a given team's fans would go to every play-off game they made. Then again, you will have those well-enough-to-do fans, who would go to all the play-off games their team was in (a maximum of 4). Some might take a chance and buy only those tickets in the hopes their team makes the semi's or finals. If it didn't happen, they might go anyway; they might sell their tickets on e-bay. Are you telling me they'd have trouble selling them? Case in point: Do you remember the '94 CF Kick-Off Classic between NE & WV, at, of all places, Giants Stadium? I couldn't get a ticket. They were sold out within weeks of them being offered. I suppose you're going to tell me the stadium was filled to the brim with nothing but NE & WVU fans. It wasn't even a bowl game.
Build it, and they will come. But, ya won't know unless ya try.
Cock'n'Fire South Carolina 101 said:
posted on August 21, 2007 10:48 PM — 96.10.98.113 — link — abuse?
well mr total tiger
i was talking about history since u were but i guess i went back a little too far...and i shouldnt go back that far considering since ive been alive weve only beaten clemson 5 times...however ima glad to have been born right before we joined the sec because i got to witness one of the greatest things to happen to us even though i was a little toddler when we joined the sec...but heres what i think...in 1975 when we beat the living shit out of yall by like 40 or sumthin points...running up the score put too much anger for yall...then in 2004 all that anger blew up when our guy got up after a play and yalls guy knocked him back on the ground for no reason...he gets up and shows him a little something and next thing u know the angers blown everybodys beatin tha $h!t out of each other...and since then the games have been alot close notice 9-13 with that touchdown yall made at the very end...and also the one i like the most...the story of mr jad dean...proctor in the shotgun jasper and syvelle come in with the blitz and BAM 10 yard loss...then my favorite part sitting at a friends house watching that 31 yard kick sail wide left i couldnt beleive my eyes however everybody was screaming so i felt it must be so i wanted to start scream but i realized i was already screaming jumping up and down hugging and all that...great day
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on August 21, 2007 11:42 PM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Cock n Misfire,
OK.. we will use your numbers since 1976
1) Clemson is 22-8-1 against your chickens. That means we are winning 72.6 percent of the time.
2) Clemson has beaten the chickens in that time span... 1976 by 19, 1978 by 18, 1980 by 21, 1981 by 16, 1982 by 18, 1988 by 19, 1989 by 45, 1991 by 17, 1995 by 21, 1997 by 26, 1999 by 10, 2003 by 46 and 2004 by 22.
3) Joining the SEC is good for the fan base. But it has done nothing for you. You have not won a conference title or national title in any sport since being a part of the conference. YOUR best sucess was in 1984 when you were NOT affiliated with the SEC. Since being a member you have just piggybacked the better teams like Georgia, LSU, etc. Why not joing the NFC East. Just because you are a member does not mean you are a winner.
4) Your 8 wins in 31 tries have an average of 8.25 points per win. our 22 wins come at an average of 16 points per game.KEEP UP THE BLOG!!!! I think you and i are the only real Palmetto State fans. I like the barbs back and forth. Besides I need to get in all the jabs i can now, I think you are headed for a great season this year.... barring injury.
ksuwild said:
posted on August 21, 2007 11:48 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
What do I suggest?
Are you serious? Read 59, 63, & 68.........there are suggestions around every corner. It's called R E A D I N G. You do know how to do that right?
If the NCAA and BCS were to impliment a playoff how do you know what sites they would even pick to play the games at.......and whether or not multiple games would be held at the same site or not? Again, you must be psychic. A 4 team playoff would have a TOTAL of 3 games held in 2 rounds. 2 in the first round and the NC in the second. If you're team made it(whoever that is)and you wanted to go see them play you would watch them play a TOTAL of 2 times. If those games were held at the same location(which they very well could be)that would be a lot of traveling wouldn't it. Whoooooh, I don't think anyone could handle that. No way.....that's crazy talk. LOL Even if they were held in 2 different locations, who says fans wouldn't like to see whatever team made it to the next round? Most people would be perfectly fine with watching their team play one live and one on TV. I can guarantee you there would be TONS of people who would want to watch whoever made it into a playoff(knowing they were going to get to see the best of the best)especially if the game was being held anywhere near them. Regardless of whether it was their team or not, it would be a great experience for whoever made the trip.........and beleive me when I say that those games would be sold out. That's horrible for the fans huh?
"if you switch to a playoff lower tier teams will never get a chance and have know doubt they will not"
You are really a F-ing Rocket Surgeon aren't you?
Why not?????
A non-BCS team can play for the national championship with the current system. A non-BCS team can make a BCS bowl that is not the national championship game(Boise St.)now that they added a 5th BCS bowl. So why would a BCS led playoff block non-BCS schools from entering it if it is already making room for them now?
Answer that one for me smart guy.
They would more than likely take the BCS top 4 or top 8 PERIOD.........regardless of what conference the team was a part of. Can you say "fair to everyone"? Come on....I know you can. You don't know how they would configure it, so stop acting like you know for a fact it would hurt the smaller conferences. It's not like non-BCS conferences exactly have it fair right now with all the BCS conference tie ins. If anything a playoff would give non-BCS schools more of a chance to win it all than the current system, NOT less of a chance.
As far as your point that there has never been an NCAA sactioned champion.......EXACTLY! There should be! Why should college football be the only sport that doesn't crown a true champion? The only sport that has controversy EVERY year? It's STUPID and UNNECESSARY. Your and Regans claims that a playoff would ruin the regular season and destroy the bowls has absolutely NO FOUNDATION and I have shredded apart your attempts to prove those points.
It is possible for new traditions to start. You know that right? There was a time when there was no Rose Bowl, no Orange Bowl, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton, etc. etc. A playoff would be a new tradition(ohhh no), and the regular season and bowl system would be just fine with it whether your stubborn traditional @$$ likes it or not. You're just SCARED of change. It's OK, you'll either learn to live with it, or get run over by it. It's up to you.
By the way, no one wants change just for the sake of change. A playoff would strengthen college football on every level you can examine it at. You either can't consider that, or you won't. I'm guessing the latter of the two. It's horribly selfish to want to keep things the way they are just because that's where Mr. James Higgs is comfortable. You try to pass it off as what's best for the game and the fans, but your points don't hold water. It's really what is best for you........isnt' it?
Zac(71), you're on point.......as usual.
Regan, I'm still waiting for you to chime in.
Tomcat said:
posted on August 22, 2007 7:27 AM — 207.193.30.194 — link — abuse?
KSUWild, Zac & GHip yall got it going on.
Why not settle it on the feild-guys-Regan-higgs
What more could
04 Utah
04 Auburn
06 Boise St Do? hello they went undefeated
Dont they deserve at least a shot at it?
Read GHip's post 20
Right now is Mt West or Wac as strong as others na maybe not under the current system. Do these leagues have teams that can compete with the big boys-heck yes and after the demise of {BCS} system teams in C-USA, Mt West Etc. will do better recruiting etc. etc.
Right noe there are teams with storied histories of Heismans and Nat Championships that really dont have much of a shot because they belong to a non BCS conference like SMU, TCU and BYU to name a few.
Go Utah beat Oregon st
Go Houston beat OregonCock'n'Fire South Carolina 101 said:
posted on August 23, 2007 12:10 AM — 96.10.98.113 — link — abuse?
well mr total tiger
i know it doesnt matter what number of years i go by clemson has beaten us many more times...pretty much ever since 1897 when we were 1-0-0 in the rivalry and had the lead for the only year in the rivalry, we have been behind ever since yall beat us that year...but im just tryin to say that it can always change...not that it will however i hope because its not much of a rivalry if we only win 1 every 4 years or so...also i never said being in the sec made us a better team...it just means we have a really tough schedule(#2 toughest in the nation this yeer) therefore if we do succeed one year like say in 2005 that was a good year we went 5-3 in the sec...it will show alot more because we know we have had it alot rougher than all the other teams and it feels so good to be victorious...however if you go back to 1969 we do have a conference championship there...we went 6-0 in the acc...also we won the southern conference in 1933 and 1941 if that counts but it probly doesnt im just looking through my little book that comes with my gamecock club membership package...
and yes we do need to keep the blogging going...because the palmetto state is amazing and i can hardly stand all these florida people talking about how they were national champions 5 times and they are going to be the best and do it again...also good luck against furman...they are my 2nd favorite palmetto team and im cheering for them when they play clemson...it will be funny if they actually win but i doubt clemson would have that bad a season if they end up having another bad season, however the 7-1 start was good you just need to hold on...and if u get the state newspaper wherever u live u can see its talking about how dominant our denfense will be this yeer...also i read about some clemson quarterback faking an injury
james higgs said:
posted on August 23, 2007 6:41 AM — 12.213.80.38 — link — abuse?
last time and i'm moving on to the next topic. first of all the Pac-10 has already said it would not support it. second, tommy T won all those games and would not suppot it.third, The college Prez. wil not allow it to be a two semester sport.fourth the SEC made 110 million last year on the bowls and aren't going to share. Fifth, Notre Dames sweet deal with the BCS. Sixth,the coaches don't want it unless they can recruit more players(Tommy T again). seventh, The pac-10,the big eleven and the big east don't even play a conference championship game now.eighth,the health of the student athelete. nineth, the travel cost to the average fan. and tenth, The History of college football. so no. no one has actually suggested anything.
Tomcat said:
posted on August 23, 2007 10:04 AM — 69.154.241.130 — link — abuse?
James higgs #78 You post is totally negative, you must break from the status quo and learn to think outside the box.While it is very easy to be negative and conform to the present, It takes hard work and determination to break the paradigm.You must be willing to accept change and help be part of the solution and not part of the problem.This type of thinking goes beyond just CFB but everything in this world.
We can improve the current system,please try to have an open mind.People by their very nature are resistant to change.You can help james higgs
Adios TomcatZac said:
posted on August 23, 2007 1:58 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Jim Higgs: As stated earlier, you makes some good points. While I don’t agree with many of them, I can certainly see where you’re coming from. In the future consider opening your mind; that is, instead of listing all the reasons a play-off system can’t happen, consider all the reasons it could. For now, I’m content to agree to disagree. I look forward to posts regarding your “…moving on to the next topic.” Pax Vo Bis Cum.
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on August 24, 2007 5:22 PM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Cock n Fire
i live in Walterboro, i can get the state and the charleslton paper. However, i can go on Tiger Net and they have a link to every paper and i can read about South Carolina and Clemson.
i have a close friend who goes to a good bit of the practices... Our quarterback looks worse this year than last... i am afraid it will be a long season in Death Valley this year.
my second favorite team in the state is Citadel. they are actually suppose to have a good team this year. but we will see.
Our season hinges on beating NC State. I do not think we can beat FSU. That would mean we would ahve won 3 in a row and 4 of 5. And they simply have to much talent for that to happen. So we need to beat NC State and start 1-1.ksuwild said:
posted on August 25, 2007 2:27 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
James Higgs, I'm addressing your points one at a time.......to make it easy for you......so you can't ask me what I "suggest" anymore. Or dodge any questions you've raised that have been addressed by myself and others.
1. Whether the Pac 10 will or won't support a playoff is irrelevant as to whether it would be better than the current system is. All that shows is that they are led by people who are as stubborn and close-minded as you are. Playoffs work.....PERIOD
2. Tommy T won all those "games" and would not support it? I know "Tommie T" is in reference to USC but I'm honestly confused as to what you mean by this Higgs......You, or someone is going to have to clarify this one for me because it isn't very clear at all.
3. College Presidents would not allow D 1a CF to be a two semester sport? Umm, why not? They have a full blown playoff in D 1aa and it runs like a well oiled machine. It's worth pointing out that their playoff is more than double the size of what a playoff in D 1a football probably would be. Smaller playoff = less teams = less players involved = less overall affect = your point down the drain.
4. Your 4th point that the SEC made 110 million and wouldn't share is all speculation and once again.........BASELESS. First off, they wouldn't have a choice of whether to share or not if they were a part of a playoff. Second, a playoff would do nothing but ADD overall revenue to what the current system generates. Meaning more money for everyone smart guy.
5. Notre Dame would work out a deal with a BCS led playoff, just like they did with the BCS bowl system. Just to clarify, I am for ALL conferences to be required by the NCAA to have a championship game. If the playoff structure gave conference champions automatic bids Notre Dame would be relegated to at large bids until they decided to suck it up and join a conference.
6. There are many coaches who HAVE vocalized their thoughts about why they think a playoff would work better than the current system, and I'm sure there are many more who haven't vocalized their thoughts EITHER WAY. DOESN'T MATTER. Just like I said in point #1.........who WOULD or WOULDN'T "support it" has no realevance as to whether it's the best thing for CF, or whether it would work or not. Everyone has an opinion, some are right, and some aren't. The facts are what ultimately will shine through in the end.......and they're not on the playoff hating side James.
7. So because they don't play a conference championship now means they couldn't in the future? Things can change James, I know that notion probably blows your mind, but they have changed since the beginning of time......as well as since the beginning of organized football back in the 1800's. I'm sure there were plenty of people against the addition of the rule that allowed the FORWARD PASS as well. Their reasoning was just as stubborn and hard-headed as yours.
8. As I pointed out before, there is no factual evidence to back up your claim that the "student athlete" would suffer due to a playoff. In fact, quite to the opposite......it is working.......RIGHT NOW.......VERY SUCCESSFULLY. You're just in DENIAL or you're ignorant and don't know any better Higgs.
9. Zac and I both demolished this point before......but you apparently ignored it. A playoff would sell out whether multiple rounds were held at the same location or not. Not every "fan" is dead set on traveling to a game anyway. Most are content with watching their team on the old boob tube, in the comforts of their home. Others(who are so inclined to see their team live)would buy tickets knowing they would be able to see their team in the 1st round no matter what. Whether their team advanced and made it to the next round or not........they would be watching the BEST OF THE BEST either way. Others would be content with traveling to ONE playoff game(as in the same as before / traveling to ONE bowl game)and watching the other on TV. Need I say more?
10. History and tradition do NOT have to leave with the addition of a playoff. That argument is a scare tactic that is all SMOKE & MIRRORS. There is PLENTY of room for history, tradition, and a PLAYOFF whether you think so or not. History didn't quit when the BCS came along. History didn't stop when new bowl games were added last year, and the year before, and the year before etc. etc. Change IS a part of history James.......you are just too close minded to look at it that way.
No one has actually suggested anything???????
PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF!!!!!!!!!
It's right in your face, and has been the whole time. What do you think we've been talking about James?
Regan, ohh Regan..........where are you now that someone is here debate you. It's funny how you always throw out your ideas against a playoff, and then as soon as someone points out the faults in them you run to another discussion and ignore them. There are holes leaking all over the place in your & Higgs' arguments......someone had better stop them quick or there's going to be a flood.
james higgs said:
posted on August 26, 2007 2:18 AM — 67.54.253.138 — link — abuse?
you guy's are amazing! you guys sit back and wait for someone to post something an attack it. you keep saying playoffs but you've never mentioned how these mythical playoffs are supossed to work. you say it's not fair please describe fair to me. Is it fair to let a undefeated boise st. in and a two loss sec team or a one loss big ten team out. hawaii will probably go undefeated this season are you going to tell me they are a better team than a one or two loss ucla. what is fair. is it fair to ask a sec team that has built great stadiums and atheletic facilities that rival pro teams to share revenue eqaully. what is fair? You know there is actually a playoff for college football. its called the regular season. Having wins and losses determine your post season birth makes each play of a game important. A win here or a loss their can determine if your going to play in the BCS bowl or the texas bowl. The nba and nhl both have playoffs. has this made those leagues better.there is a case to be made that the playoffs in the nba actually have hurt the league. Explain to me this. there are about 30 to 40 programs that we talk about each year. the reason we talk about them is the fact they have always been the most committed to this sport. so why should they suffer. Gentlemen the playoffs of college football are about to start in less than one week. for the people who still want a playoff you need to sit back and actually look at what your trying to sale because i'm not buying it. well hope your team gives you something to cheer about.
ksuwild said:
posted on August 26, 2007 2:03 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
Hey James,
No one is attacking you, just pointing out the faults in your statements against a playoff.
What is fair? Here is the definition for you.
Fair- Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics. Just and honest to all parties. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial.
There are a number of ways you could configure a fair playoff. The first thing that should happen regardless of whether a playoff would have automatic bids or not would be to require ALL conferences who don't have a championship game to have one. It is a great way to weed out the pretenders from the contenders, and it's really not fair that some conferences have them and others don't.
I'm not going to sit here and act like I know how the NCAA and BCS would configure a playoff but I do have my own ideas as to how it could work.
The BCS ranking system not only takes wins and losses into effect but it also has a human element(in the polls)that understands strength of schedule and other factors like bad officiating that computers can't and don't understand. So, knowing how many factors the BCS takes into consideration........I believe it is as fair as anything and I would still use the BCS to rank teams for a playoff.
My idea is that a year would be set........let's say 2010........that all conferences would have to have a conference championship game set up by. 2010 would also be the first year that the playoff happened. I would start with a 4 team playoff(because it would ruffle the least ammount of feathers)that took the top 4 BCS ranked teams after all the conference championships had been played and the final BCS rankings were out. A 4 team(in my opinion)is too small to have automatic bids and at large bids so I wouldn't even go there. The problem I see with a 4 team playoff is a scenario like 2004 but with more undefeated teams. 5 or more undefeated teams or 5 or more 1 loss teams with NO undefeated teams would be a big mess to figure out even with the BCS ranking system. The odds of more than 5 teams being undefeated at the end of the year exponentially go down very rapidly as you add teams to that scenario but that doesn't mean it's not possible. I could very easily see a year with NO undefeated teams and about 6 or 7 ONE LOSS teams.
That brings me to the 8 team playoff. My idea for the 8 team playoff is to have 4 automatic bids that go to the 4 highest rated conference champions regardless of what conference they are from, and 4 at large bids that go to the next 4 highest rated teams regardless of what conference they are from. There would be NO BCS tie-ins to this playoff. The BCS ranking system would decide whether you are worthy to be in, with NO preconceived notion of who the superior conferences and teams are. The other way(that would be fair too)to configure an 8 team playoff would be to do it the same way I said to do the 4 team. No automatic or at large bids. Just take the final BCS top 8 after all the championship games have been played. Either way works WELL in my opinion.
A 16 team playoff could work as well......with 8 automatic bids and 8 at large bids or just taking the top BCS 16 but at that point your taking A LOT of teams from the left over bowls and also getting into a situation where some of the teams making it in might not be of the same caliber as the others. So I believe an 8 team playoff is the way to go.
An 8 team playoff would be fair to EVERYONE. It would effectively decide a TRUE champion and would NOT disrupt the importance of the regular season or the bowl system in place.
That's what I suggest James.
Zac said:
posted on August 26, 2007 2:37 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Jim Higgs, I find this to be an interesting assessment of the debate which has ensued following the phrase play-off. As I understand your opening lines from post #84, an individual disagrees with you in an open debate, and you interpret it as an "…attack…" As you see fit with your interpretation. While I was willing to let it go and move on, as you suggested in Post 78, here you are asking the question, "…how these mythical playoffs are supossed to work…"
Quite a few threads ago, there were many discussions and debates regarding this issue. I don't recall either the thread or blogger who suggested it, but it is by far my favorite idea. I've titled this idea, The Top 10 Play-Off System. At season's
cctke455 said:
posted on August 17, 2007 10:35 AM — 129.71.136.119 — link — abuse?Its not where the conferences are ranked in the preseason polls that matter, its how they finish. Most respectable "experts" had the Big East finishing in the top 4 by the end of the 2006 season.
I don't buy the the Big East is top heavy with little depth as an excuse for BE in the #6 slot. The PAC-10 has been USC and everyone else for some time now. I understand that the ACC was bad last year and doubt that will continue...but last years ACC was like having VT and 11 Pittsburgh Panthers. So based on Louisville and WVU I'd have the Big East higher.
To conclude, The SEC is clearly the #1 conference, however...I think #2-#6 is too close to call. They all have reasons to be ranked sixth, and they all have good reasons to be ranked second. We all follow our conferences with passion and pride, but if you put aside your prejudgements and analyze....the parity in the BCS conferences is clear.