College Football Top 10
Uncategorized November 26th. 2007, 12:02pm
Is the nation ready for a WVU-Missouri national championship? Why not? You have to figure BCS suits are rooting for one of them to lose this weekend so Ohio State – which travels well and actually has something of a national following – can sneak into the mix. There’s probably a 60 percent chance of that happening. WVU is a 28.5 favorite against Pittsburgh. WVU beat Pitt 45-27 last year on the road and 45-13 at home two years ago. No. 1 Missouri, on the other hand, is a three-point underdog in the Big 12 Championship game against Oklahoma. (That BCS formula is impervious to reason.) The Tigers last beat the Sooners in 1998, and lost to them, 41-31 in Norman earlier this year. Here’s the funniest scenario that can’t possibly happen (or can it?): WVU loses. Missouri loses. LSU loses to Tennessee. Then who the hell do you go with? Georgia? Can Kansas make an argument? Virginia Tech?
10. Kansas – For awhile there at 21-0, we though we might have to whip out the fraud card on these guys. Nice rally, good season, and enjoy the Sun Bowl.
9. Florida – Would be hilarious to see the Gators in a bowl game against ASU, because Rudy would carve up the terrible Florida secondary, but Tebow would probably go nuts, too.
8. Oklahoma – With freshman Sam Bradford alive and kicking, the Sooners will be OK because this man says so.
7. Virginia Tech – Impressed the hell out of us by rolling over UVa. Not nearly as close as the score indicated.
6. USC – Don’t think there’s a scenario in which the Trojans could play for the national title, but we’d love to see USC-Georgia in a Bowl game.
5. Georgia – Right now, there probably isn’t a better rushing tandem in the country than Thomas Brown and Knowshon Moreno. Preseason Top three next year?
4. LSU – Despite the crushing home loss to Arkansas, we think the Tigers are still in the hunt. The computers wouldn’t vote a non-SEC division winner (Georgia) to the title game over LSU, and it probably would have a hard time putting Virginia Tech in there, since LSU crushed the Hokies. Then again, computers tend to do silly things (unless you have an Apple, which is flawless piece of machinery).
3. Ohio State – If WVU and Missouri lose, OSU will not play one-loss Kansas or unbeaten Hawaii.
2. West Virginia – Dave Wannstedt has done less than nothing in his tenure at Pitt, but you can be damn sure he’ll get free lap dances for life – in Pennsylvania and Columbus if he takes down WVU.
1. Missouri – When you think Missouri, you just don’t think football. Chase Daniel vs. Pat White is a national title game we can get interested in.
69 Responses to “College Football Top 10”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Is ASU vs. Florida even a possibility? I don’t think it is. Unless Florida is line to go to the Holiday Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl (rumor is Kansas vs. ASU, assuming we can be UofA).
November 26th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
It has to be LSU. Georgia didn’t even get to the championship game, and LSU killed VT. But you already said that.
And LSU is the only team in college football outside of Hawaii that hasn’t lost in two or fewer overtimes.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“Nice rally, good season, and enjoy the Sun Bowl.”
That’d be the Cotton Bowl, perhaps worst case scenario the Holiday Bowl.
Spoken as a KU fan…
It was a home game for Missouri. KU gave up a home game for money and it ended up costing them. From everyone I’ve talked to that went to the game… it was 60% Mizzou fans with most of them in the field level seating. That being said… Mizzou’s Texans are faster than our Texans. We missed so many tackles. Mangino reverted back to his old self and gave up on the run way too early.
I have no idea if Mizzou is the best team in the country. After watching a season worth of Big 12 football I do know they are much better than OU. Ignore the earlier loss. Pinkel got cute and they had a couple dumb turnovers. Mizzou is focused and has the same if not better talent than OU on offense. If they replicate their defensive effort from Saturday, they are 2 touchdowns better than OU.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
When you think Missouri, you do think football. You think Fleakicker. You think Fifth Down. You think Larry Smith’s wife going crazy on the sideline after a 66-0 loss to K-State. You don’t think this, Mizzou at No. 1 and in position to play for a national title, is probable.
But it actually is, and that’s crazy.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I’m really pulling for a WVU-Mizzou final, even if Jim Delaney will naturally re-arrange the rules to make sure the Big Ten gets even more advantages next year.
Someone please just get a playoff system going for Christ’s sake…
November 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Missourri vs West Virginia will be a ratings dog.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I don’t think it would have mattered where the KU/Missouri game was played, Missouri looked like the obviously superior team to me.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Glad to see you mentioned the walloping that VT put on UVa. Too much talent + too much speed + too much coaching = VT winning 7 of last 8.
The loss to BC one month ago hurts a lot more now then it did then. Let’s see if VT can stay focused and avenge the BC defeat.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
If Mizzou wins things will look lie this:
BCS: Mizzou vs WV
Sugar: LSU vs. Hawaii
Orange: ACC Champ (VT) vs. Florida
Fiesta: Kansas vs. Georgia
Rose: Ohio St. vs. USC
November 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“Missourri vs West Virginia will be a ratings dog.”
BIG FUCKING DEAL. The ghost of Chuck Klosterman lives!
Maybe we can rig it some way so that USC or Michigan is playing. That way, ESPN and Fox will be happy, and the game will be a “success.”
November 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“I don’t think it would have mattered where the KU/Missouri game was played, Missouri looked like the obviously superior team to me.” CHB
I won’t argue that. Mizzou is faster and was way more focused. Just sour grapes on my part that we couldn’t have played that game at home in front of our own crowd. Perhaps we would not have dug a 21 point hole.
All that being said, the better team won and I am shocked KU is BCS #5. 8 – 10 is more realistic.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
If neither the Big 10 nor the Pac 10 have a team in the BCS Champ, they contractually have to play each other in the Rose Bowl.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Is this the weekly college football bitch-fest? I hope I’m not late.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I think we can all agree – we’d be pumped for Missouri-West Virginia.
But not sure about this one – could give half a shit about the rest of the entire bowl season. The games don’t matter. It’s the only postseason in which the games mean NOTHING.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
What about McFadden and Jones at Arkansas? That’s a pretty solid running back core.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Florida cannot play in a BCS game. Assuming Georgia ends up in the BCS top-4, they are automatic. The winner of Tenn-LSU is also in. Very real possibility that even LSU will be left home. Also, didn’t BC beat VT on VT’s field and in horrible weather? Just checking.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Thanks, NSR, for the bowl matchups, but I think there’s a rule that one conference can only have two representatives. Thus, Florida, Georgia and LSU can’t all make BCS games. Substitute Illinois for Florida and you’re probably right on the money. It also raises the question about how much that must sting to Florida fans to see Ron Zook in a BCS game while the Gators are on the outside looking in. Of course, Florida probably wouldn’t trade the national championship last year to have Zook back, either.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Yes, McFadden/Jones is an awesome tandem.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Pistol Pete,
You’re right.
Georgia and Florida would both be eligible. The Orange has first at-large pick. Which SEC team would they take?
Also, I would almost bet money that Washington upsets Hawaii which would add Arizona St. and Illinois to a rather mediocre BCS lineup.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
If we had ham we could have ham and eggs if we had eggs.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
How Houston Nutt can win only 8 games with McFadden and Jones (and Hillis) is beyond me.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Going by the almighty TBL rankings, how would this look as a first round:
1. Mizzou v 8. OU
2. WVU v 7. VT
3. tOSU v 6. USC
4. LSU v 5. UGA
Just sayin’.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
If Mizzou and West Virginia lose on Saturday that has to kill LSU anf Georgia. IF those two were in the SEC title game and not Tennessee those two wold both have a signature win in the last week of the season, giving them a very good shot of making the title game, but since LSU has to play a weaker Vols team and because of that Georgia cant play another game, neither team can go into consideration above a OSU, Kansas, OU, even USC. Kentucky having their kick in overtime blocked was a VERY important play in the landscape of the entire BCS process.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Cannot have more than 2 teams from a conference represented in the BCS.
BC will be facing a different VT team than they did one month ago. Tyrod Taylor and Vince Hall were both out with injuries and the starting center was injured before halftime.
VT showed how to beat BC and that is exactly what happened the next two weeks.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Would a win over a 10-2 Boston College team be enough for VT to pass Kansas (probably) AND Georgia in the BCS standings? If so, they would be in the title game against Ohio St. if both Mizzou and West Virginia go down.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
OU > VT in that scenario.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Because I think I am the only one that likes this debate…A playoff system would be screwed this year. The BCS has it correct as it stands now. WVU and Mizzou are the two best teams in the nation, and if they win out they will play for the championship, Hawaii will get a BCS game and mucho dinero, and OSU will play USC just like old times. How is that a bad scenario for college football? The BCS has it right, or at least close.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
No way Mike. OU is 9th in the BCS and VT is 6th. OU’s losses to two unranked teams would do them in.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Eagles,
You really think in an eight-team playoff system we’d be left with Missouri vs. West Virginia?
November 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Possibly. Under a playoff format, however, we would KNOW who the two best are, under those conditions.
For example, I think USC > Mizzou. USC just doesn’t deserve the chance to play them, under the BCS system. But that doesn’t mean they’re not the better team.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
@NSR:
Probably not, but a college playoff very, very rarely ends up with the 2 best teams squaring off. That’s why NCAA Hoops has 4 seeds and worse routinely in the final 4 of 64. It’s all well and good for people who like to root for cinderella, but it does a half-assed job (at best) of crowning a champ.
My $0.02
November 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Nick,
Four seeds and worse routinely win the tourney? Last one to do that was Arizona a decade ago. And they won it by beating three straight #1 seeds. Championship well-deserved.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Anybody else think that an Oklahoma vs. Hawaii in the Fiesta would be VERY fun to watch, thinking that Oklahoma could loose to 2 mid major teams makes my pants go crazy.
And I have no intrest in a OSU vs. VT game, which would happen if both top 2 teams loose due to the fact that VT is already ahead of LSU and VT’s win over BC in the ACC game would be more of a “quality” win than LSU vs an average Tenn.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
@NSR: I said routinely make the final 4.
Carmelo also won it as a 3 seed, and as you said, Arizona as a 4.
So do you really Syracuse/Arizona were deserved national champs, coming into the tourney as something like the 9th – 16th best team in the nation? If so, would you mind if 3 loss Clemson/Illinois were the national champs?
It just seems dumb in college hoops to disregard the firt 30-32 games every team plays and replace those with the last 6 crammed into 19 days.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I love OSU’s chances.
Missouri does not have the same talent Oklahoma has. They have great players and great coaching, but so does Oklahoma, and they are deeper.
It’s going to be a great night for me. The game is at the Alamodome, so the Sooner fans will take the place over. Oklahoma wins by 10. Commence TBL reader squirming.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
@Longliveriverfront:
Why did the Reds sign Cordero to $46MM? One of the worst signings in recent memory. I thought it was bad when we hired Dusty Baker. This may be worse.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Nick,
The money is insane (biggest deal for a closer in ever in MLB), but I like the move. Griffey will be off the books after this year, and Dunn may be as well. With Harang and Arroyo locked up to what’s actually below market value deals now, the money fits well. Plus, Castellini is now showing that he will spend money, unlike former owners.
Cordero has a great HR rate and a really good k/BB ratio. It allows Weathers to pitch the 8th, and Burton and Bray to take the 7th. That means no more Coffey/Weathers/Mablowski in key situations.
I would have rather signed/traded for a #3 starter, but no starters of that level are on the FA market, and trading Votto, Bruce, Bailey or Cueto for one would be bad.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Forget about trying to figure out who is the “best” team. This is something that cannot be determined from a 12-game season in which teams play wildly varying schedules, and where the top teams generally do not meet. Even if you had a playoff, it would not determine who is the “best” team; it would only determine a champion. The “best” and the champion are not necessarily the same. It sounds silly, but the goal is not to be the “best” (subjective), but to be the champion (objective).
If you had a four-, eight- or sixteen-team playoff, you would still have controversy determining who fills out the field, and you would be as likely to have a winner that was not the subjectively perceived “best” team. If LSU could lose to unranked Arkansas at home, it could lose to a #4 or #8 or #16 seed in a playoff. At least the BCS holds teams accountable for their regular-season performance. Why play the season if you’re going to allow, for example, USC a shot at the title even though it lost at home to Stanford?
People need to keep in mind what the BCS is intended to do. It was set up to guarantee that the #1 and #2 teams would play each other. Before the BCS, that didn’t always happen. Take 1994 as an example: Nebraska and Penn State finished unbeaten at #1 and #2, respectively. As Big 12 champ, Nebraska automatically went to the Orange Bowl. As Big Ten champ, Penn State automatically went to the Rose Bowl. If it weren’t for the BCS, USC and Texas wouldn’t have played each other in January 2006.
Missouri and West Virginia are the top two in the writers’ and coaches’ polls. They would be so even without the BCS. Hate the fact that there isn’t a playoff if you think a playoff would be better, but don’t hate the BCS formula. It’s actually an improvement over what we had before.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
@ Nick. Exactly. Every team has a chance at the national title. It’s called the regular season. Yes Florida can probably hang with most teams at 3 losses, but they had their chance. Yes the SEC is tough, but so is the Big 12. Every team plays tough games, except maybe WVU and OSU, but that is due to a down year from their conferences. I don’t care about WVU and Mizzou travelling well. I like football, and I want to watch the two best teams square off, which the BCS has correct right now. I don’t care if some fairwhether OSU fan just wants to see OSU play, turn on HBO to see them.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
@ Brian, exactly too.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
No love for the Rainbows ?
November 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I think the top two teams from the SEC should play in the national title game every year.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
The only loser in an SEC championship is the big ten. slurp. slurp.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
And yet . . . the NFL’s playoff system does just fine. Anyone who opposes a playoff in CFB is an idiot, I’m sorry.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Mike the NFL is not college FB. The only thing tougher than picking two of the best teams is picking 8 of the best teams. A plus 1 is the only option in college besides the current system, and that is only necissary if there is a legitimate gripe.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I don’t “oppose” a playoff system. I just argue that it wouldn’t make it that much more likely to end up with the “best” team as champion. The NFL’s playoff system “does fine,” but it gives the “best” teams home-field advantage until the Super Bowl (no proposed college playoff would do that). Still, the “best” team doesn’t necessarily win. (See the 2005 Steelers.)
Incidentally, anyone who claims that the earth is flat is an idiot. Anyone who claims that “anyone who opposes a playoff” is an idiot needs to take a breath.
On another note, here is where strength of schedule will end up for title-game contenders after this week’s games are played:
LSU (8)
Va. Tech (10)
Missouri (14)
Oklahoma (27)
Georgia (29)
West Va. (39)
Ohio St. (48)
USC (65)
Kansas (82)
November 26th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
And, yes, I overdid it with the quotes on that last post.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Sorry to triple-post, but I left out one other important point differentiating the NFL from the NCAA: entry to the NFL playoffs is based on standings. Any NCAA playoff would be based on subjective opinions of who is “best.” It’s apples and oranges.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
It is much, much better to have an “argument” about who the 16th and 17th best teams in the country are, than it is to have one about who the 2nd and 3rd best teams are. Someone is going to be left out of a playoff, that’s just the way it is; the 66th team is left out of the CBB tournament, and life goes on.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
And how is the Top 2 decided? By the BCS, which includes subjective opinions. Why is it okay with you to allow subjective opinion to determine two worthy teams, but not sixteen?
So you’d rather have a BCS formula decide who the two “best” teams are, and have them play it out – who is to say that winner of that game is the best team in the country after that? Nobody. You could play this game of semantics all day long.
When you group 16 of the “best” teams (as decided by your beloved BCS) in a bracket, you let them play it out, one game at a time, with everybody knowing the stakes ahead of time. Win and move on.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Is it really better? Has the 16th- or 17th-best team earned a chance to play for the championship?
November 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I think 8 would be a more reasonable number; I was getting carried away with 16. I don’t know if that would change your opinion or not.
But I would say, yes: if the standings were final as they were today, LSU and USC deserve the chance to compete in a tournament that determines the national championship.
What happens if WVU and Mizzou both lose this weekend – who “deserves” the Top 2 spots then? Why have the BCS leave out the third “best” team; wouldn’t it be better if they left out the ninth “best” team instead? Somebody has to be left out. I don’t think including 8 teams is a crazy idea.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
entry to the NFL playoffs is based on standings
Did the Giants really deserve to make the playoffs last year at 8-8? Why not just take the two teams with the best records at the end of the year and have them play in the Super Bowl?
November 26th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Mike, you have no real plan for the playoffs. You just say a bunch of teams should be in it, and they should play until 1 is left. Where are the games played? What advantage does the 1 seed have? Do conference champions get an autobid? How do you determine the 16 teams that should get in, do you use the BCS anyway? Most of those teams didn’t play well enough during the year, and don’t deserve a shot at the title. And sorry, but you have to answer to sponsers. How do you decide who plays where, and talk about teams not travelling well. I don’t think Hawaii brings too many people to the continental US. I agree the BCS isn’t perfect, but it is better than, “Lets just have a playoff.” That idea is idiotic.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Mike, where did I describe the BCS as my “beloved”? My point was only that people need to remember what the BCS was set up to achieve: to ensure that the #1 and #2 teams play each other in a bowl game.
Why is it okay with you to allow subjective opinion to determine two worthy teams, but not sixteen?
My statement about subjective opinion was made to differentiate the NFL playoffs from a potential NCAA playoff, not a 2-team BCS from a 16-team BCS. You’re taking what I said out of context.
So you’d rather have a BCS formula decide who the two “best†teams are, and have them play it out – who is to say that winner of that game is the best team in the country after that? Nobody. You could play this game of semantics all day long.
The BCS does not determine who the “best” teams are. That is something that could not be reasonably determined unless all of the candidate teams were to play multiple games against one another, at home and on the road, which is something that the calendar does not permit. The BCS merely identifies the two teams that have the best body of work (call them the most “deserving” teams, if you prefer) and enables them to play each other. Nobody can say that the winner of the BCS title game is the “best” team, just as nobody could say that the winner of an 8- or 16-game tournament would be the “best” team. They would only be the winner of the tournament and, thus, champion.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Mike, your plan is to give everyone a fair shot. Using TBL rankings, A 1 loss Kansas at 10 or 3 loss Florida at 9 can beat most of the team ahead of them, but wouldn’t get the chance to prove it. The playoff scenario opens too many doors, and I haven’t seen a proposal that satisfies what is wrong with the BCS.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Eagles, I’m not an event planner, so I’m not going to address your “scheduling” questions, but I have a hunch the NCAA and its sponsors could figure something out.
Here’s a door: eight teams. Your door is two teams. How’d that work out in 2004, when Auburn was left out, and OU was humiliated by USC? Or in 2003, when USC was left out?
The point is: the BCS cannot be trusted to determine the two most “deserving” teams in any given year, because often there are more than two teams who deserve to have a shot at the title; to remedy that problem, you allow more than two teams in the tournament. Yes, there are going to be arguments about the 8th and the 9th teams, but I would rather have the BCS make a call on that scenario, knowing there are still seven other teams in contention, that having the BCS make a call and leave all other contenders out of it.
As I said above, many times it is not clear who the #1 and #2 teams are by the end of the regular season; see 2003 and 2004.
And yet the point still applies: you are allowing subjective opinion to determine two teams; why not eight?
I know you don’t like the NFL analogy, but . . . the winner of the NFL playoffs/Super Bowl is “only” the winner of that tournament, and yet nobody seems to have a problem with that; why do you think that is?
November 26th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Now you’re just not comprehending, Mike. The point is that, whether the Giants “deserved” to be in the playoffs or not, they met the requirements for entry because they had one of the top two records among non-division winners in their conference. A college playoff would be hard-pressed to implement such a criterion because teams play wildly divergent schedules.
Frankly, I think it would be much fairer if the team with the best record in each conference went straight to the Super Bowl, but that’s not happening just like a college playoff isn’t happening. In general, there are too many playoff teams in pro sports and the regular season is devalued as a result. Don’t even get me started on the fact that “wild-card” playoff spots and unbalanced schedules exist simultaneously. This is an absurd competitive inequity. (But no one seems to care.)
Here’s a college playoff I could get behind. First, require all conferences who wish to participate to play a full conference schedule (i.e., all conference teams play all other conference teams– no more Ohio State doesn’t play Wisconsin as in 2006, Kansas doesn’t play Texas or Oklahoma as in 2007, or LSU doesn’t play Georgia or Tennessee as in 2007). Then, allow only the conference champions into the playoff. Every conference would have a clear champion, with ties broken by head-to-head results or more involved tiebreakers for ties involving three or more teams. Give automatic bids to the six BCS conferences, and then let a BCS-type formula or a selection committee pick two of the other five FBS conference winners to fill out the remaining two spots. As for Notre Dame, they join the Big Ten.
It’s just an idea. It obviously needs a lot of work.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Oh, I am comprehending quite well. The entire point of this debate is the requirements for entry. I think the BCS’ is too limited, by allowing only two teams. If you expand the field to eight, then your requirements change, and, therefore, the 8th ranked BCS team (for example) has met them. Again, more semantics.
Have the last word, I’m out.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Because there are only 32 teams in the NFL, the teams play roughly comparable schedules, and the teams with the best records during the season are given a competitive advantage in the playoff.
It is clear in the sense that there is a ranking. Whether the top-ranked teams are the “best” is indeterminable and irrelevant. The BCS was designed to ensure that the #1 and #2 teams– AS DETERMINED BY WHATEVER POLL OR FORMULA IS IN USE– play each other in a bowl game. It is not designed to ensure that the best teams end up ranked #1 and #2. Nothing can ensure that. There are likely many voters who do not believe that Missouri and West Virginia are the two best teams, but they voted them at the top of their ballot anyway because they have had the best seasons. Even if there were no BCS, these would still be the top two teams.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Last word: the requirements for entry to the NFL playoffs are objective. The requirements for entry for any proposed NCAA playoff (besides my cockamamie idea described above) are subjective.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I am going to quote Mike since you missed it the first time: “You are allowing subjective opinion to determine two teams; why not eight?”
Mike is spot on.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Dornock/Mike are not spot on because as we said earlier in the debate, the 8th ranked team probably doesn’t deserve a shot at the title. I don’t think it is often that a 3 loss team is the best team in the country. The arguement against the BCS is that it is not fair, well neither is an 8 team playoff. A plus 1 is the only real other option. USC or Auburn would have had vindication in such a scenario. We aren’t saying the BCS is the answer to all, but the 8 team playoff scenario doesn’t work without fixing a lot of flaws.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Well you have to draw the line somewhere. Clearly you agree with that: you think the line should be drawn with two teams, as determined by the BCS standings. The problem with this is it allows “deserving” teams (Auburn, USC, etc) to be excluded based on the stubbornness of your two team system. Is it not better to include an “undeserving,” three-loss team than to exclude a “deserving,” zero-loss team from the title? Should we not be aiming to strike a balance between having a fun tournament (more than two teams) and a practical tournament (not, say, 64 teams)?
Hell, if you are going to allow the BCS to whittle down the “deserving” teams to a total of only two, why not just take it one step further and not play a National Title game at all: whoever finishes No. 1 in the BCS standings after the completion of the regular season is automatically crowned champion.
That’s fantastic; now, as been asked multiple times, why not have the BCS, and its subjective nature, ensure that the #1 – #8 teams play each other in a tournament?
November 26th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Spot on again. Why not just eliminate the bowls and just give the championship to the number one team?
Guess I don’t understand how the number 8 team “doesn’t deserve a title shot”. By nearly every account I read or hear, USC, the current number 8 team is as good as anyone right now.
In fact, there is a chance, a good chance that number 8 USC would be the FAVORITE to win such a tourney. Nuff said.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:18 am
The number 8 team doesn’t “deserve” that shot because the regular season should matter. No matter how good we may subjectively think USC is, it had a chance to reach the title game under the existing system and it lost to Stanford at home and to Oregon on the road. USC has 2 losses against the 66th-ranked schedule. The Trojans’ dominant win at Arizona State should not override their performance over the rest of the season.
I’m not claiming the current system is perfect, just that it’s better than what we had before, and that it accomplishes what it was designed to do. I don’t think replacing a subjective and flawed 2-team system with a subjective and flawed 8-team system is a significant improvement. An 8-team playoff along the lines I described in an earlier post (i.e., conference champs only after playing an equitable schedule) would be a different story.
For most of its history, college football survived and thrived despite the fact that there was nothing more than a mythical national champion. Maybe we shouldn’t worry so much about making college football conform to every other sport’s way of doing things, and just enjoy it for what it is, because the reality is that it isn’t going to change any time soon (and by that I mean within the next five years).
November 27th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Go Pitt!!
November 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Is it not better to include an “undeserving,†three-loss team than to exclude a “deserving,†zero-loss team from the title
HAHA well I don’t see any “deserving” zero loss teams this year, and given your 8 team format, you could still have a 0 loss Hawaii excluded. How is that fair? As Brian said, why change a flawed system for a flawed system? A plus 1 is the only other format that has any plausibility, or a 4 team playoff.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:10 am
But you did in 2004. You also had a problem with 1-loss teams in 2003. And 2006. And 2001. Shall I go on?
re: Hawaii . . . you have to have a cut-off somewhere. I see now you are willing to go to four teams. At least you’re going in the right direction.
(Even still, why not follow the BCS rankings all the way through to the end, as I suggested earlier, and just crown the regular season BCS No. 1 champion, and not play a NC game?)
No. The question you should be asking yourself is: which system is less flawed? No system can be perfect, of course.