Official College Football Thread - Week 10

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Along with killing the much of the regular season, you also kill the bowls - and anyone who claims differently is nothing short of either a damned fool or in unfamiliar with the NIT - but those still have meaning, at least at times (we could do with a few less I'd admit).

The regular season is killed because teams actually have to play tough opponents and prove on the fucking field that they deserve their ranking? The bowls are a joke and nearly all of the teams that play in them lose money.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The best regular season in all of sports. Perhaps the only truly meaningful regular season left in all of American sports (I can't speak much to international competitions in that regard).

I'll still take the NFL.

Which means what, a 1/8 chance as opposed to a nearly sure thing? It becomes no different than a meaningless college basketball regular season game.

So it's a good thing that the season is essentially over now, and we're just waiting for LSU's final game two months from now to make it official?

As for the also rans, you try telling Georgia fans that their season is meaningless after that embarassing loss, as they wait to see whether CMR can save his job with a possible Sugar Bowl bid.

Along with killing the much of the regular season, you also kill the bowls - and anyone who claims differently is nothing short of either a damned fool or in unfamiliar with the NIT - but those still have meaning, at least at times (we could do with a few less I'd admit).

You don't break what isn't broken, and the most broken thing about college football is the attention paid to the useless racket from people that seem to be too simple-minded to comprehend something other than a tournament.

This is a matter of perspective, and I guess it's that of a big old-school college fan (one that has a couple of rooting interests) compared to someone who isn't (and doesn't) but wouldn't mind becoming a bigger fan. And it's a sport that's plenty popular now, so I guess it's fine as it is for die-hards. Georgia fans may care about Georgia. I couldn't care what they do - they are out of it as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for all but a handful of teams. If a game doesn't involve someone in the top 5 from here out, I don't care. It has no bearing on the championship, so I could care less about it.

The NFL? Half the teams are still jockeying for position. Many playoff spots could be contested right up through the last week. I'm going to care about all of those games involving those teams, because in the grand scheme - crowning a champion - they still mean something.

Bowls? Pfft. They're exhibitions. They don't decide anything, and I've essentially stopped watching them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So it's a good thing that the season is essentially over now, and we're just waiting for LSU's final game two months from now to make it official?

Because the national championship isn't really the point of the season for the majority of teams. Neither is the BCS, neither is the tournament.

This is a matter of perspective, and I guess it's that of a big old-school college fan (one that has a couple of rooting interests) compared to someone who isn't (and doesn't) but wouldn't mind becoming a bigger fan.

I guess if those changes are what it takes to make you a bigger fan, I'd rather you go away.

Nothing personal, but to get you in would largely destroy it for those of us who've invested major portions of our lives as fans. Chasing non-fans completely fucked up NASCAR, largely fucked up pro wrestling, I'd rather not have college football go down the same path. I've had enough stolen from me in the pursuit of people who really don't give a shit and never have, after a while it's hard not to become angry about that.

Bowls? Pfft. They're exhibitions. They don't decide anything, and I've essentially stopped watching them.

Fine, but a lot of us haven't stopped following those, I'd rather not have them fucked up by something that adds absolutely nothing (beyond non-fans) to the experience at the highest level.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I guess if those changes are what it takes to make you a bigger fan, I'd rather you go away.

Nothing personal, but to get you in would largely destroy it for those of us who've invested major portions of our lives as fans. Chasing non-fans completely fucked up NASCAR, largely fucked up pro wrestling, I'd rather not have college football go down the same path. I've had enough stolen from me in the pursuit of people who really don't give a shit and never have, after a while it's hard not to become angry about that.

I can completely understand that, and I don't take it personally. The NASCAR analogy popped into my head as well while I was writing my last post.

I wonder if it would be best to just do away with the BCS/Championship Game idea completely then. It seems like a compromise between fans that like the old way and fans that need a resolution that it still doesn't bring.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I wonder if it would be best to just do away with the BCS/Championship Game idea completely then. It seems like a compromise between fans that like the old way and fans that need a resolution that it still doesn't bring.

I liked it without it much more just like I loved when they had most of the important games on New Years Day. Now its so spread out with completely crap bowls its really hurt what made it so great.

15-20 years ago New Years day was filled with 10 of the best bowls out there. It was an enjoyable day for football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I wonder if it would be best to just do away with the BCS/Championship Game idea completely then.

I'd have no problem with that at all.

I tolerate it's existence because it's not incredibly awful, and has actually done a more than respectable job of accomplishing its primary purpose most of the time. It also provides a certain degree of financial stability by increasing the odds of a 1v2 matchup for the paying networks.

But I'd shed no tears at the return of traditional conference/bowl ties as much as possible.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Other than their current meaning.

Which is what? There are only a couple of games a week that even matter when it comes to the NCG. And most of the time those teams are playing inferior competition.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Which is what? There are only a couple of games a week that even matter when it comes to the NCG. And most of the time those teams are playing inferior competition.

A lot of people cared more than just the National Championship than they do now at 1 time. There was once a time when winning the Rose Bowl was a big deal for a Big Ten team. You also knew that while it was a longshot you could be ranked 3rd or 4th and still win the national championship coming into the big bowl games. The 1&2 matchup certainly wasnt a lock to happen every year a few years back.

Yes people got what they wanted a Super Bowl of college football but it sure messed up a lot of things that were great about it to get it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes people got what they wanted a Super Bowl of college football but it sure messed up a lot of things that were great about it to get it.

Like what?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like what?

Traditional Bowl matchups between conferences that actually have meaning
New Years day being the best day of football every year
The suspense of having 3-4 games with National Championship meaning coming into the bowl games rather than just 1
Fans getting to enjoy a bowl victory without it being a poor season because they didnt win the Nat'l Championship

[RainMaker]

I guess it's odd that getting rid of a system where random writers decided your champion is considered a bad thing.

And don't a lot of bowls still maintain some of the conference matchups?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Which is what? There are only a couple of games a week that even matter when it comes to the NCG. And most of the time those teams are playing inferior competition.

JIMGA's point is that unlike every other sport in the US (which has a playoff that renders anyone other than no 1 as a "loser"), CFB has multiple winners at multiple levels - ie, for Vanderbilt, it may be that upset win, for someone else, it may be a bowl game, while for the the elite, its a NCG or a Rose Bowl. Ie, similar to football (soccer); Swansea is never going to win the Premier League, but is targetting a mid-level position and consolidation. I don't know if I fully agree with him, but I get the point that "winning" means different things to different people, and a playoff ruins that.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And don't a lot of bowls still maintain some of the conference matchups?

The meaningless ones.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

JIMGA's point is that unlike every other sport in the US (which has a playoff that renders anyone other than no 1 as a "loser"), CFB has multiple winners at multiple levels - ie, for Vanderbilt, it may be that upset win, for someone else, it may be a bowl game, while for the the elite, its a NCG or a Rose Bowl. Ie, similar to football (soccer); Swansea is never going to win the Premier League, but is targetting a mid-level position and consolidation. I don't know if I fully agree with him, but I get the point that "winning" means different things to different people, and a playoff ruins that.

I don't understand how a playoff ruins any of that. Winning would still mean different things to different schools. For some it would be an upset win, some a playoff birth, some a NC.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

The meaningless ones.

Were there really that many that had conference ties though? I know a couple had strong traditions, but a lot of them seemed to change a lot over the years. It's not like there were 10 different Rose Bowls out there.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Were there really that many that had conference ties though? I know a couple had strong traditions, but a lot of them seemed to change a lot over the years. It's not like there were 10 different Rose Bowls out there.

I dont recall everything but Rose Bowl was Pac-10/Big Ten, Sugar Bowl usually had a SEC team, Cotton Bowl was Big 12(might have been the Big 8 at the time), and Orange Bowl usually had the biggest Natl championship implications. Fiesta Bowl was very popular at one time as well.

[RomaGoth]

FWIW, I really miss the old bowls on New Year's Day. Waking up, getting the food ready, and hanging out all day watching football. I knew that a few of the games would be a dud (although these were usually the ones a few days or a week before), but most of the New Year's Day games would be good matchups.

Now the shit is stretched out over several weeks and the championship game is creeping up on Super Bowl Sunday. Ugh.

[RainMaker]

I think some are overdoing the traditional bowl matchup thing. Sure there was the Rose Bowl, but it was a mixed bag outside of that. It's just a bad excuse.

I do miss the New Years Day games though. One of my favorite part of growing up was waking up and watching a ton of college football.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think some are overdoing the traditional bowl matchup thing. Sure there was the Rose Bowl, but it was a mixed bag outside of that. It's just a bad excuse.

I do miss the New Years Day games though. One of my favorite part of growing up was waking up and watching a ton of college football.

Yeah it would be a bad excuse if you dont care about anything other than the Nat'l Championship game.

Dont you think its ridiculous that these take some of these bowl games, give them a name like Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl and have two teams play in them bowls without any tradition even backing why them teams are playing in that game? The Rose Bowl was started by the Pac-10/Big Ten. Why the hell do two teams not associated with them conferences now sometimes play in that game?

I know you watch wrestling Rainmaker. Its like putting the WWE Championship on Shaquille O Neal. It is just some stupid gimmick that traditional fans hate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Dont you think its ridiculous that these take some of these bowl games, give them a name like Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl and have two teams play in them bowls without any tradition even backing why them teams are playing in that game? The Rose Bowl was started by the Pac-10/Big Ten. Why the hell do two teams not associated with them conferences now sometimes play in that game?

Is this the part where we pretend that fans care about conference tradition?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is this the part where we pretend that fans care about conference tradition?

Its sad that the BCS played a role in that, yes.

The part where you talked about how much you enjoyed New Years Day at one time tells me you arent 100 percent in favor of all of these changes aimed at a playoff.

[bronconick]

The bowl tie-ins stopped being neato when all the independent's joined conferences. Suddenly there weren't half a dozen random teams in a pool to be selected. 7 were in the final top 25 in 1990.

Rose- Duh
Sugar- SEC vs. At-large
Orange- Big 8 vs. At-large
Citrus- ACC vs. At-large
Cotton- SWC vs. At-large
Fiesta- At-large vs. At-large

Without an independent pool that included Penn State, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State and the rest of the original Big East like Syracuse, Pitt and WVU (Louisville was #12 in 1990, surprisingly as well), all those bowls were stuck looking for 7-4 8-3 2nd/3rd teams in conferences to fill in, and then the conferences and bowls made deals for those teams to be permanently in whatever bowl.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

This is the only argument I don't understand - I can see the argument to keep BSU out, I can see the argument that they'd have a couple of losses in the SEC, but I don't get the sentiment that they just have no chance to compete whatsoever, as if they're some kind of high school or lower division team. I mean LSU would be a favorite, maybe by 12 or 13 points. If they played 100 times, LSU would win most of the time, they'd have a few blowouts, but Boise St. would win plenty as well. It's not like Boise St. is this huge enigma and is actually a Northwestern State or Florida Atlantic-caliber team and we'll all find that out if they ever played LSU. I mean, Boise St. is certainly better than Georgia, probably a lot better. Which makes them better than most of the SEC. Certainly good enough to pull an upset here and there, and at least have a chance to compete with anyone. I think the "Boise St. would obviously get destroyed by any real team" argument may have been in play a few years ago, but I don't think it is with this current team.

I think the argument has progressed from "they have no chance to win this game so why let them play it?" to "Yeah, maybe they can get up for one game but it's not fair that they get to play for the championship considering their regular season schedule." This, of course, after BSU has routinely beaten "better" BCS conference teams over the past 5-6 years.

[bronconick]

You can't use past season's Boise wins vs. BCS teams to justify them getting a bid this year. Otherwise, why not have SEC rematches every year in the BCS title game, because the SEC is the only team that wins BCS titles?

[MizzouRah]

I'm not so sure I like Mizzou to the SEC, we can't even beat Baylor!

[BishopMVP]

If Arkansas beats LSU to end the season who wins the SEC West?

[gstelmack]

The Bowls became "meaningless" when:

- More and more cropped up, so now any team with a pulse gets to go to one.
- The National Championship became such a huge deal, along with cupcake schedules and isolated scheduling (the best teams don't actually play against each other all that much) that meant you couldn't really figure out WHO the best team was after the Bowls.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If Arkansas beats LSU to end the season who wins the SEC West?

From wiki

1. (Once the tie has been reduced to two teams, go to the two-team tie-breaker format.)
2. Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams.
3. Record of the tied teams within the division.
4. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last.
5. Overall record vs. non-division teams.
6. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams.
7. Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.
8. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If Arkansas beats LSU to end the season who wins the SEC West?

Unless they've been changed since 2009 (how these are dated), here's the tiebreaker procedure for determining SEC divisional representatives in the SEC championship game
http://sec.xosdigitallabs.com/NEWS/t...e-breaker.aspx

B. THREE (OR MORE) TEAM TIE

1. (Once the tie has been reduced to two teams, go to the two-team tie-breaker format.) Okay
2. Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams. All 1-1
3. Record of the tied teams within the division. All 4-1
4. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last. All 7-1 so I don't think there is a "best overall"
5. Overall record vs. non-division teams.All 3-0
6. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams. All 1-0 vs Tennessee, the only non-divisional opponent shared by all three
7. Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.
All 1-0 vs Tennessee, the only non-divisional opponent shared by all three
8. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

Beats the hell out of me, I would guess it comes down to Alabama/LSU head-to-head at that point but who knows

[Ben E Lou]

That JIMGA/cuervo72 exchange really does an excellent job of summing up the opposing views in a nutshell. Well done by both of you, both on articulating your viewpoint, and on remaining respectful toward the "other side."

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by bronconick

You can't use past season's Boise wins vs. BCS teams to justify them getting a bid this year. Otherwise, why not have SEC rematches every year in the BCS title game, because the SEC is the only team that wins BCS titles?

Sure you can, because the SEC's history of dominance is baked into the polls right now, and every week. There's a reason we're even talking about a possible rematch for the title, and that's because historically, the SEC has had the best teams in the country for the past 5-6 years, without question. The only reason it probably won't happen is because people are generally against it, and what happened with OSU/UM in 2006 is a big factor in that, too. I think people want someone outside the SEC to make LSU prove they are the best, because they almost made that mistake with OSU, and then OSU lost to UF, I think it was.

They get the benefit of the doubt, not just for what they've done this year, but what their conference does every year.

At least with BSU, we're limiting it to just their past success as a factor. Ranking so many SEC East teams this year was solely based on the SEC's prestige factor, even though this season has demonstrated that the SEC East is way, way down. South Carolina was and is not a top 10 team if they were in another conference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

South Carolina was and is not a top 10 team if they were in another conference.

I hope you meant to say Florida instead of SC.

With Lattimore, South Carolina was definitely a top 10 team this season.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I hope you meant to say Florida instead of SC.

With Lattimore, South Carolina was definitely a top 10 team this season.

...and here we part ways. I confess I only saw them play twice this year with Lattimore, but both times, they looked like a #25 type team.

[Logan]

If you don't mind horrible QB play, I could see them being a top 10 team.

[Ksyrup]

With or without Lattimore, that was not a top 10 team. I watched them on several occasions, and they did not look good. For a team that was supposed to be built on D, they give up a ton of points to good offensive teams. And they effectively have no QB.

Yes, UK made them look like a combination of LSU and Oklahoma State, but that's about it.

And my point is, they got credit this year for beating teams in their conference that are historically strong programs, like UGA, Auburn, Tennessee, and even Miss. St. (who had some buzz around them to begin the season), but those wins aren't all that impressive in a down SEC year. But USCe got credit for them, to the extent that they were put in the top 10. They were never a top 10 team, IMO.

[jbergey22]

Yeah you would think a team prior to injury that had Lattimore and Jeffrey would have had a better offense.

Not sure what to make of them. Talent was top 10 but they really never played like it.

Garcia was the #1 qb coming out of HS I believe. What a flop he turned out to be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

If you don't mind horrible QB play, I could see them being a top 10 team.

That's hindering LSU and Bama so much

(yes, I know McCarron is actually 3rd in the conference in passing efficiency, I'm just fucking around with perception)

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: "Game of the Century" (which I thought was indeed overhyped)

Bama-LSU pulled a 14.1 18-49 rating in Atlanta, Falcons got an 11.1
HH rating was 23.0 to 20.9

[Ksyrup]

I enjoyed the game. I pretty much expected what we got, but thought we'd see a TD or two. Not shocked we didn't. Alabama's special teams aside, it was a far better played game than the typical SEC East game this year. I had a hard time watching UF/UGA, for instance - 1-21 passing at one point in the second half will do that - and I thought the defenses earned their performances in this game. The offenses were conservative, but not bad/sloppy. I think it was more a recognition of the quality of D both teams were up against, and knowing that the first to make a huge mistake would probably lose.

[MJ4H]

Could've made a fortune on last longer bets between Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino. Oh well.

Ole Miss Rebels Football: RebelGrove.com

[cartman]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Could've made a fortune on last longer bets between Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino. Oh well.

Ole Miss Rebels Football: RebelGrove.com

It is just abundantly clear that he wanted no part of having to take on Mizzou as a conference rival. To suggest otherwise is just ignoring the obvious.............

[Ksyrup]

The message is clear - if you lose to Kentucky, you deserve to lose your job.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Sure you can, because the SEC's history of dominance is baked into the polls right now, and every week. There's a reason we're even talking about a possible rematch for the title, and that's because historically, the SEC has had the best teams in the country for the past 5-6 years, without question. The only reason it probably won't happen is because people are generally against it, and what happened with OSU/UM in 2006 is a big factor in that, too. I think people want someone outside the SEC to make LSU prove they are the best, because they almost made that mistake with OSU, and then OSU lost to UF, I think it was.

They get the benefit of the doubt, not just for what they've done this year, but what their conference does every year.

At least with BSU, we're limiting it to just their past success as a factor. Ranking so many SEC East teams this year was solely based on the SEC's prestige factor, even though this season has demonstrated that the SEC East is way, way down. South Carolina was and is not a top 10 team if they were in another conference.

It would be cool if sports came up with a system where these questions could be answered on a playing field. Just throwing it out there, but maybe you have the teams play each other and the one that keeps winning gets to keep playing for a championship or something.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It would be cool if sports came up with a system where these questions could be answered on a playing field. Just throwing it out there, but maybe you have the teams play each other and the one that keeps winning gets to keep playing for a championship or something.

That assumes that it's a huge deal to all fans to try to determine said "champion".

It's entertaining, sure. But how much value should you really put into it? I would bet that how people view the influence of luck or chance (or whatever you want to call it) influences how they view playoffs and how "valid" that is for determining the best team.

For me, a tournament champ is just that -the tournament champ. Were they necessarily the best team? Not always.

Your mileage might vary. But for me, having an FBS championship tournament is just not that important.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not bad

It was the highest-rated regular-season college football game for the network since 1989, when Notre Dame-Miami drew an 11.9 rating on CBS.

It was also the second-highest-rated regular-season game since records began being kept in 1987, trailing only the Irish-Hurricanes contest.

CBS averaged an impressive 6.4 adults 18-49 rating in primetime, trumping everything else on television and drawing the best Saturday rating in months.

CBS actually beat all the other networks put together Saturday, with no one averaging more than a 0.9 against the tough competition.

Media Life Magazine - CBS scores with LSU win over Alabama

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That assumes that it's a huge deal to all fans to try to determine said "champion".

It's entertaining, sure. But how much value should you really put into it? I would bet that how people view the influence of luck or chance (or whatever you want to call it) influences how they view playoffs and how "valid" that is for determining the best team.

For me, a tournament champ is just that -the tournament champ. Were they necessarily the best team? Not always.

Your mileage might vary. But for me, having an FBS championship tournament is just not that important.

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.

I'd argue that most of the people pushing it just aren't college football fans.
{shrug}

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd argue that most of the people pushing it just aren't college football fans.
{shrug}

Yes, they are football fans.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know it's not for everyone. I think a reason it doesn't catch on is that a large percentage of college football fans just aren't really big football fans. More into the other stuff that goes with it and the games are secondary.

Id argue that college football fans are more diehard than pro football fans are. College alumns take their school very seriously. They have roots to their team where as pro isnt as personal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, they are football fans.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that, at least not if what you really mean is "NFL fans".

I barely give two shits about the NFL, haven't in years. I follow it similar to how I follow American Idol or other pop culture stuff. But I spend somewhere between 5-10 hours a week just keeping track of HS football and watch at least my fair share of college football, not to mention reading likely well above average amounts of stuff about it.

So how to reconcile those things? Beats me.