Official College Football Thread - Week 13

[MrBug708]

Agreed. And UCLA hasnt won the South yet, but Carroll kinda ruined it for USC this year so the angst should be towards him

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So 6-6 UCLA gets to play for a bid in a BCS Bowl game. Will wait to hear how college football's regular season is like a playoff every week.

I thought the purpose behind your playoff idea was to determine a Nat'l Champion through a playoff system???

UCLA wouldnt qualify in any system, except a playoff system, for the National Championship.

It sounds like you agree that the playoff is a bad idea?

[bhlloy]

Why are the announcers in the ASU game saying the Sun Devils have nothing to play for? Did I miss something between this morning and this evening?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

And a playoff would allow enough other teams that it would keep someone like Oregon or Stanford from being excluded because of UCLA.

You must be looking at a playoff with atleast 16 teams.

Im really not sure what that would accomplish other then hurt the regular season.

At this point I think we pretty much all have it figured out that LSU is the best team. I suppose you could make a case for 3 others (Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Houston) to play them in the BCS championship. I cant really think of another deserving team that even deserves consideration.

I could handle a 4 team playoff but a 16 would be too many.

The crappy part of this year is LSU is going to be in a position that they will deserve the Natl Championship whether they win or lose the BCS game.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Why are the announcers in the ASU game saying the Sun Devils have nothing to play for? Did I miss something between this morning and this evening?

Utah losing to Colorado clinched the South Division for UCLA.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Why are the announcers in the ASU game saying the Sun Devils have nothing to play for? Did I miss something between this morning and this evening?

An Arizona State win only ties them with UCLA in wins. UCLA owns the tiebreaker so ASU cannot represent the South. ASU is already bowl eligible and the PAC-12 won't have enough bowl eligible teams. It's going to be like last year where an average UW team was in the Holiday bowl, the PAC-12's second best bowl tie in

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I'm convinced the Green Bay Packers are the best team in the NFL. Should we just say "fuck it" to the playoffs and just pick someone from a random/flawed ranking system and skip straight to the Super Bowl with other good teams going to other postseason bowl games?

No, that would be idiotic and the champ wouldn't be forced to prove it on the field.

Imagine taking the undefeated Patriots and randomly assigning them a Super Bowl opponent. Most likely would have been the Cowboys or Packers. The Giants would never have had the chance to win it.

The college football bowl system is the dumbest system in sports. There has never been a legitimate DI-A/FBS champion. Just people who got voted for or were chosen by a monstrously convoluted system.

It's a manly version of the Olympic figure skating judging rules.

Watching people defend it based on "tradition" is pretty funny while schools are gleefully tearing apart century long rivalries in the chase for a few more television dollars. Not quite as funny as the "A playoff wouldn't be fair to our student athlete's academic careers" presidents would use, while DIII schools play a month long playoff, but pretty close.

Before that, it was the "We can't have a couple teams playing 14 game seasons. 11 games and a bowl is plenty." Now a dozen schools play 14 games a year, and when the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC go to 9 game conference schedules in 2015-17, the next thing will be a push for a 13th regular season game to play in late August so those big universities can get their 8th home game in the years where they have a 4 home/5 road game split in conference play. That'll happen within a decade of the 9 game schedule. Then there will be 15 game seasons.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

The college football bowl system is the dumbest system in sports. There has never been a legitimate DI-A/FBS champion. Just people who got voted for or were chosen by a monstrously convoluted system.

Yeah certainly not as good of a system as one that allows a team with numerous losses having the chance to claim championship over a team with one failure on the season.(NFL playoffs)

If they ever do decide on a 16 team playoff you will be bitching about that as well because how will they decide on the 16 teams???

Just people who got voted for or were chosen by a monstrously convoluted system.

[Swaggs]

Enjoyed myself at the Backyard Brawl. I really hope the schools can figure out a way to continue the series -- it is always a big game, regardless of records.

Hard to believe Tino is the best QB on that roster. Limited physical skills and he doesn't seem to have any mental or leadership intangibles either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I thought the purpose behind your playoff idea was to determine a Nat'l Champion through a playoff system???

UCLA wouldnt qualify in any system, except a playoff system, for the National Championship.

It sounds like you agree that the playoff is a bad idea?

One of the biggest arguments BCS supporters make is that a playoff would result in teams being able to sandbag games late in the year if they had already assured themselves a birth. Claiming things would be like the NFL in the final weeks. That the games would lose meaning.

Playoff supporters have stated that's ludicrous and college teams would never do that regardless of their future position. We now have two examples this season to prove it. UCLA can theoretically rest their starters and still play for a chance at the Rose Bowl. LSU can theoretically lose the SECCG and still play for a NC. I guarantee you both teams will play their ass off and the games will still carry meaning. Something many BCS supporters claim isn't possible.

I don't care if UCLA plays in the Rose Bowl if they win the Pac-10. The conference sets up how they want to crown a champion. Just as I wouldn't care if they got an automatic bid to a playoff for doing so. But I'm not the one claiming how important the regular season is while potentially putting a 7-6 team in the most prestiguous non-NC bowl game.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One of the biggest arguments BCS supporters make is that a playoff would result in teams being able to sandbag games late in the year if they had already assured themselves a birth. Claiming things would be like the NFL in the final weeks. That the games would lose meaning.

Ive never actually heard this as an argument. Id love to see that argument because anyone that really thinks college kids should/would be sandbagging games needs their head examined.

They would lose meaning because the Alabama/LSU, Stanford/Oregon, LSU/Arkansas games wouldnt severely hurt a teams chances at a NAt'l title because each team would be safely assured a spot in the top 16. It was very unusual that bama got back in the picture this year. Normally, losing that game would have ended their championship hopes.

If you look at the college schedule there is usually a game each week that is similar to what you would see in the playoffs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Ive never actually heard this as an argument.

They would lose meaning because the Alabama/LSU, Stanford/Oregon, LSU/Arkansas games wouldnt severely hurt a teams chances at a NAt'l title because each team would be safely assured a spot in the top 16. It was very unusual that bama got back in the picture this year. Normally, losing that game would have ended their championship hopes.

You made the argument just a few posts up. And if you feel those games above lose meaning, you must feel that UCLA/USC, Michigan State/Northwestern, and LSU/Georgia lose meaning now.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You must be looking at a playoff with atleast 16 teams.

Im really not sure what that would accomplish other then hurt the regular season.

At this point I think we pretty much all have it figured out that LSU is the best team. I suppose you could make a case for 3 others (Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Houston) to play them in the BCS championship. I cant really think of another deserving team that even deserves consideration.

I could handle a 4 team playoff but a 16 would be too many.

The crappy part of this year is LSU is going to be in a position that they will deserve the Natl Championship whether they win or lose the BCS game.

[Atocep]

I'd be interested to see a study done on exactly why a playoff makes people feel more comfortable with things in general.

I always find the "prove it on the field" claims and statements somewhat humorous since the only thing really proven on the field in a playoff is that over that game or series that you were better than the teams you beat.

In 2007 the New York Giants for 16 games were clearly the 2nd best team in their division. That was proven on the field. They lost to Dallas twice, split their series with Washington, and only outscored their opponents by 22 points that year. Then in the playoffs they beat a Tampa team they were better than, managed to pull off an upset against Green Bay, and then beat Dallas despite being outgained by more than 100 yards and losing TOP by 13 minutes. In the Super Bowl they beat a team they lost to at home to close out the regular season.

Great story? Yes, of course. What was proven on the field though? To me the only thing that was really proven was they were able to play well for a stretch at the end of the season and take advantage of the breaks that were given to them. Great story, a great super bowl, but not a great team.

In 2006 the St. Louis Cardinals were an 83 win team in a division that, as a whole, was outscored by its opponents by 344 runs. It's unlikely they make the playoffs playing in any other division in baseball. They played well in the postseason, but avoided playing the team that was the best in baseball that year (the Yankees). What was proven on the field?

The NCAA tournament each year is given as an example of a great playoff. It's fun, it's exciting, it has great drama, and everyone gets a chance to cheer for the underdogs. The reality is that not much is really proven on the court. In order to win this tournament you have beat 6 out of 64 teams 1 time. What in the world could possibly be proven on the court in this case?

The BCS system spreads the importance of games out over the course of a season and attempts to match up the 2 most deserving teams. A playoff pushes the importance of games into the later part of the season and crowns a playoff champion with little regard to who is most deserving.

Every system outside of a long, drawn out round robin is going to have its flaws. The BCS, the NFL playoffs, the NCAA tournament, the MLB playoffs. All of these have their problems. Very little is actually proven on the field or on the court in any of these systems. I've hit the point where I really believe it comes down to people just missing the drama, the stories, and the underdogs people love to cheer for when they complain about the BCS. That's fine, but the "prove it on the field" talk has always been something that I can't help but laugh at.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You made the argument just a few posts up. And if you feel those games above lose meaning, you must feel that UCLA/USC, Michigan State/Northwestern, and LSU/Georgia lose meaning now.

I never said every game had to have Natl championship meaning. BTW while LSU can mostly likely lose and still get in the Nat'l championship its certainly not a lock. They are going to still have to show up.

Just give me my 1 or 2 games each week that have a big influence on who in the Natl Championship and I am happy. I dont think I am being unreasonable that I enjoy LSU/Alabama or Stanford/Oregon more than any NFL regular season game I will watch in 10 years.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'd be interested to see a study done on exactly why a playoff makes people feel more comfortable with things in general.

I always find the "prove it on the field" claims and statements somewhat humorous since the only thing really proven on the field in a playoff is that over that game or series that you were better than the teams you beat.

In 2007 the New York Giants for 16 games were clearly the 2nd best team in their division. That was proven on the field. They lost to Dallas twice, split their series with Washington, and only outscored their opponents by 22 points that year. Then in the playoffs they beat a Tampa team they were better than, managed to pull off an upset against Green Bay, and then beat Dallas despite being outgained by more than 100 yards and losing TOP by 13 minutes. In the Super Bowl they beat a team they lost to at home to close out the regular season.

Great story? Yes, of course. What was proven on the field though? To me the only thing that was really proven was they were able to play well for a stretch at the end of the season and take advantage of the breaks that were given to them. Great story, a great super bowl, but not a great team.

In 2006 the St. Louis Cardinals were an 83 win team in a division that, as a whole, was outscored by its opponents by 344 runs. It's unlikely they make the playoffs playing in any other division in baseball. They played well in the postseason, but avoided playing the team that was the best in baseball that year (the Yankees). What was proven on the field?

The NCAA tournament each year is given as an example of a great playoff. It's fun, it's exciting, it has great drama, and everyone gets a chance to cheer for the underdogs. The reality is that not much is really proven on the court. In order to win this tournament you have beat 6 out of 64 teams 1 time. What in the world could possibly be proven on the court in this case?

The BCS system spreads the importance of games out over the course of a season and attempts to match up the 2 most deserving teams. A playoff pushes the importance of games into the later part of the season and crowns a playoff champion with little regard to who is most deserving.

Every system outside of a long, drawn out round robin is going to have its flaws. The BCS, the NFL playoffs, the NCAA tournament, the MLB playoffs. All of these have their problems. Very little is actually proven on the field or on the court in any of these systems. I've hit the point where I really believe it comes down to people just missing the drama, the stories, and the underdogs people love to cheer for when they complain about the BCS. That's fine, but the "prove it on the field" talk has always been something that I can't help but laugh at.

This is very well said. I thought about getting into this(07 Pats) on one of my posts and thought better of it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Also, if UCLA wins the "conference championship", they will make it to the playoffs, if there were one. Along with other stellar teams like BE, CUSA and Sun Belt champions. Then we would have a whole week of first round matchups similar to some of the mismatched conference championships. Both are unnecessary.

I don't understand why all those teams would have to make a playoff. Division 2 has something called "Earned Access". You get an automatic bid to the playoffs as long as you fall within a certain regional ranking.

So you could set an 8, 12, or 16 team playoff and give automatic bids to teams that fall within a certain BCS ranking. Then fill the rest in with at-large. That way you avoid putting in inferior Sun Belt, C-USA, BE, or P-12 championships teams in years where they are not that good.

[Solecismic]

Isn't it a flawed system if a team would be better off if it could forfeit its conference championship game?

I would like to see an 11-team playoff where the winners of the five major conferences are awarded byes into the quarterfinals.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I missed how unbelievable this comment was the first time around. Why would they DESERVE the National Championship if the LOSE the so-called National Championship Game?

If you lose the championship game, you do not deserve to be the champion. How is that a difficult concept to understand?

Its beyond your level of thinking. You only care about 1 game.

To answer the question. LSU will have beaten bama on the road, played a tougher schedule, and an extra game. Why should this one game mean more than all the others? I look at the overall picture and use a bigger sample size.

[bronconick]

I'd argue that the more connectivity you have in your schedule, the less necessary playoffs become except as money grabs. In my opinion, college football and basketball are the most in need of a tournament of some variety. MLB could pull out a balanced league schedule and go back to 1960's pennants and I wouldn't bat an eye. 160 games is more than enough time to figure out who's better if things are even.

On the other hand, the college football Sagarin ratings have the Big XII as the best conference in America by far based on their 27-3 non-conference record, while the voters have the SEC as elite partially based on their past 5 championships. How do we compare them objectively? The one matchup was a 10-2 Arkansas storming back from multiple scores down to beat a 6-6 A&M team.

The answer is you can't, so we're stuck using woefully inadequate information (less than 10% of Round Robin connnectivity even possible) to select the bare minimum of teams. The worst of both worlds.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I always find the "prove it on the field" claims and statements somewhat humorous since the only thing really proven on the field in a playoff is that over that game or series that you were better than the teams you beat.

That is the entire essence of sports. To prove that on the field for X amount of time, you were better than the other team. It's why we don't just look at a sheet of paper and crown a champion based on who has the best recruiting classes.

Originally Posted by Atocep

In 2007 the New York Giants for 16 games were clearly the 2nd best team in their division. That was proven on the field. They lost to Dallas twice, split their series with Washington, and only outscored their opponents by 22 points that year. Then in the playoffs they beat a Tampa team they were better than, managed to pull off an upset against Green Bay, and then beat Dallas despite being outgained by more than 100 yards and losing TOP by 13 minutes. In the Super Bowl they beat a team they lost to at home to close out the regular season.

And there is a good chance we could see a team that LSU beat beat them in the NCG. We see undefeated teams play 1-loss teams or teams with inferior schedules. The only way you get a perfect system is if everyone played the same opponents in the same venues and whoever finished best got it.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Every system outside of a long, drawn out round robin is going to have its flaws. The BCS, the NFL playoffs, the NCAA tournament, the MLB playoffs. All of these have their problems. Very little is actually proven on the field or on the court in any of these systems. I've hit the point where I really believe it comes down to people just missing the drama, the stories, and the underdogs people love to cheer for when they complain about the BCS. That's fine, but the "prove it on the field" talk has always been something that I can't help but laugh at.

But out of all the sports, college football proves the least in their regular season. Everyone has completely different schedules to varying degrees of difficulty. The difference in the top teams and the bottom teams is more dramatic than any professional sport. Yet it's the sport that feels the least amount of need to determine who is best on the field.

You can make a great case for all the major professional sports for reducing their playoff pool. They all play relatively equal schedules, splitting their home/away games, and without huge gaps in talent. You can make better determinations with that. But in college football, you're trying to determine whether OK-State or Alabama deserves to play LSU when neither team played a common opponent all year. How the hell can you tell which team is more deserving?

Playoffs aren't perfect, but at least a team has to get on the field and beat their competition. The Packers last year still had to beat 4 quality teams and prove the are the best team in football. Alabama and OK State have to convince coaches, writers, and computers that they are better than one another.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I missed how unbelievable this comment was the first time around. Why would they DESERVE the National Championship if the LOSE the so-called National Championship Game?

If you lose the championship game, you do not deserve to be the champion. How is that a difficult concept to understand?

Because to many, what happens on the field shouldn't matter. Computers, writers, and coaches who don't watch all the games should do it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

No, it's fucking idiotic. You lose and you deserve to be champion? That's the kind of bullshit that leads to everybody gets a trophy in little league.

Because you only care about 1 game. And what you are saying is exactly what you are after by allowing all of these 2 loss teams in your playoffs.

In what world does a 1 unit sample size outweigh a 13-14 unit sample size? In your world.

LSU will have beat Bama on the road and played a more difficult schedule and played an extra game. How that hell will Alabama have a convincing argument they were better? Because they won the game in January while LSU won the game in November?

To me that is idiotic.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because to many, what happens on the field shouldn't matter. Computers, writers, and coaches who don't watch all the games should do it.

Do you two realize there are over 125 D1 teams?

Whether it is bowls, Natl Championships, or playoffs the computers, writers, and coaches will HAVE to determine who plays in these. I am sure everyone wishes they could have a balanced schedule and come up with some super system but it cant/wont happen. Too many teams and not enough time. The conferences cant even have a balanced schedule.

I guess your choices are a 125+ team 7 week tournament that lasts the entire season or we just have to go on some assumptions/projections/computers to decide on which teams are better.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is the entire essence of sports. To prove that on the field for X amount of time, you were better than the other team. It's why we don't just look at a sheet of paper and crown a champion based on who has the best recruiting classes.

What is X amount of time? In the example I gave above the Cowboys were better than the Giants over the course of a 16 game schedule.

The Cardinals weren't one of the 10 best teams in all of baseball over 162 games.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The only way you get a perfect system is if everyone played the same opponents in the same venues and whoever finished best got it.

Isn't this more or less the point I made above? You're trying to spin my statements into a BCS is superior to a playoff and at no point did make that claim or even infer it. I fact, I made it pretty damn clear that both both the BCS system and a playoff system have their flaws. They aim to accomplish different things.

I pointed out the ridiculousness of the "prove it on the field" statements people make in support of a playoff.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Playoffs aren't perfect, but at least a team has to get on the field and beat their competition.

No, they don't. They beat a portion of the competition and other teams take care of the rest.

[RainMaker]

Much less margin of error putting in 8, 12, or 16 teams than putting in 2.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Much less margin of error putting in 8, 12, or 16 teams than putting in 2.

I guess that depends on what you are looking for.

If you want a NFL/March Madness like tourny where odd results can happen based on this 1 game type of format knowing you have a decent shot of not finding the best team but is entertaining this is for you.

If you are looking for the two best best teams to play in the championship the computers do a great job IMO. People want to be skeptical of them but Vegas cashes in year in and year out using these computers so I tend to believe they know what they are doing.

Yeah play the game on the field I get it. But I think its safe to say computers can gather enough data over 13-14 games to get their shit pretty accurate.

All of this is what Atocep has done a nice job of selling. Both of these systems have flaws.

I dont claim the non playoff system is the best way to decide a champion I do claim it is the best way to keep the regular season as interesting as it is now.

This is all kind of pointless anyway. In a one game scenario where the ball can bounce so many ways there is always going to be some sort of luck factor involved. I know in the one game they played in November I thought Alabama was probably the better team(didnt catch the breaks) and now I am trying to say even if Alabama wins they dont deserve the Nat'l Championship. I'll just stay out of this conversation from now on because Im not even sure myself what system I want. Probably something not even remotely possible.

[RainMaker]

But computers can't do a good job predicting this. There isn't enough data to go by, not enough common opponents, and no way to differentiate the home field advantages.

You have 6 computer rankings. 4 of the 6 list Kansas State ahead of Oklahoma. An Oklahoma team that beat them by 42 in Manhattan. These same computer rankings also don't have to give the BCS their formula or even verify them. This was brought to life when a couple teams switched after the fact because an Appalachian State-Western Illinois game wasn't added to it. Yes, an Appalachian State-Western Illinois caused shakeups in the BCS standings. That is the system that they go by.

And one of the others is coaches and a random sampling of people connected to college football who couldn't possibly watch all these teams play. Are you telling me that these people watch all these games and see all these teams they vote on? Don't worry though, they only count for 2/3rds of the whole thing.

[RainMaker]

And my knocking of the formula isn't just a playoff complaint. I think if you keep a system like the BCS, go to a committee format and select individuals who can use all the data to make their determination and who would dedicate themselves to watching as many of these teams as possible.

[jbergey22]

Rainmaker, Its not possible for any human being to watch every game. Well possibly if that person didnt sleep and fast forwarded through the commercials.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You have 6 computer rankings. 4 of the 6 list Kansas State ahead of Oklahoma. An Oklahoma team that beat them by 42 in Manhattan.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with that ranking. These computers base it off of the entire years worth of data. I dont think we can say they all suck simply for this reason.

I am sure 95 percent of the human population would have predicted the Ravens to hand it to the Jags on Monday night a few weeks ago. It doesnt mean the Jags are better it just means that for whatever reason the Ravens didnt win that game.

Oklahoma State lost to Iowa St and the Saints lost to the Rams. Few humans could have predicted that just like no computer could have predicted Oklahomas thrashing of Kansas St or their loss to Texas Tech. If I had a choice I would take the computer every time. People tend to base their opinions off of more recent play and have bias tendacies. Computers use all of their information as a whole and doesnt decide they like Oklahoma States cheerleaders better than Stanfords so Oklahoma State gets a better ranking.

[RainMaker]

Computers aren't a huge problem if there is enough data. There just isn't enough with college football.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Computers aren't a huge problem if there is enough data. There just isn't enough with college football.

Agree but nothing can be done about this.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is the entire essence of sports. To prove that on the field for X amount of time, you were better than the other team. It's why we don't just look at a sheet of paper and crown a champion based on who has the best recruiting classes.

I'm fine with saying you want to see a champion settled on the field, or you think a playoff would be more exciting, or more profitable, but the idea that one game "proves" a team is better than another is the flaw your argument is based on (this time).

I'm sure those computers also say that OU is better than a Texas Tech team they lost to, Michigan is better than Iowa, Boise State is better than TCU, etc - and they're probably right. Upsets happen. The 2007 Giants deserve to be called champions, but they weren't the best NFL team that year. UConn last year and Syracuse with Carmelo deserve to be called national champions, but neither was the best college basketball team in their year.

IMO, the perfect playoff system is to have a committee decide the number of teams who deserve to be in the playoff after the season ends - some years it would be 3 or 4 (a.k.a a plus-1), some 7, this year maybe we could skip it and just give it to LSU if they beat Georgia convincingly. And I know you'll argue for a playoff, or a larger playoff regardless, but the idea that anything can be proven in a one game sample is ridiculous.

[Edward64]

For the LSU fans - you whupped us, I'm glad we got you worried for a quarter and half. I'll root for the SEC but would pick you over AL if it came to it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What's the good word?

[BillJasper]

I think they either need to got to a playoff format or go back to the way things use to be prior to the BCS. The bowl games now feel like an afterthought.

[molson]

Where exactly is the cutoff to where if a team beats another head to head, they MUST be ranked ahead of them. I love how that point's always made as if it proves itself - "team x beat team y and y is ranked ahead of team x...case closed!"....I don't think anybody has Oklahoma ranked behind Texas Tech at this point. Is that just because Oklahoma is say, ranked 30+ spots ahead of Texas Tech if we don't consider that head-to-head result? If the difference is less than what, 10 spots, then head-to-head is determinative?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Equal record. Two teams have one loss, team A beat team B, team A should be ranked ahead of team B.

While I tend to agree, that also means that team A has a worse loss than team B in most cases.

[bob]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What's the good word?

To hell with Georgia!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

There has never been a legitimate DI-A/FBS champion.

And the problem with that is what? It is one of the few non-professional (on paper) leagues where the journey is the reward. I would guess that many fans of Ohio State, Alabama or Texas can tell you about the games with Michigan, Auburn or Oklahoma (respectively) before they can recall who won the "championship" that year.

[B & B]

Its offically not a shock when GT beats UGA today because Corso AND Herbstriet picked it.

This was after Corso called Desmond Howard, Dennis.